2352 GI/2023

(1061)

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. 16]

नई दिल् ली, अप्रैल 16—अप्रैल 22, 2023, िजनवार/चैत्र 26,—वैिाख 2, 1945

No. 16]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 16—APRIL 22, 2023, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 26,—VAISAKHA 2, 1945

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 अजिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जविेि मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली,12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 547.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारतीय उच् चायोग, लंिन मैं जवनीत िनखड़, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को अप्रैल

12, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै ।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(13)]

एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-09052023-245760

CG-DL-W-09052023-245760

1062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNALS AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 547.—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 Shri Vineet Dhankhar,

Assistant Section Officer in the High Commission of India, London as Assistant Consular Officers to perform

Consular services with effect from April 12, 2023.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(13)]

S. R. H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 548.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, अप्रैल 17, 2023 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवविन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय

जमिनों/पोस्ट्टों में सिायक कांसुलर अजिकाररयों के रूप में इस मंत्रालय के नीचे उजल्लजखत अजिकाररयों की जनयुजि

करता िै:

क्रम सं. अजिकारी का नाम और पि

)

सवव

श्री

(

जमिन / पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में

जनयुि दकया गया िै

खुिबू अिलावत,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, न्यूयॉकव

बलवंत राि,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, िुबई

िीपक राणा,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

प्रमोि कुमार यािव,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, बर्मिंघम

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(14)]

एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2023

S.O. 548.—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 the below mentioned

officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular

services with effect from April 17, 2023:

S. No.

Name & Rank of the Officer (S/Shri)

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistanct

Consular Officer

Khushboo Ahlawat,

Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India,

New York

Balwant Raj,

Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India, Dubai

Deepak Rana,

Assistant Section Officer

Pramod Kumar Yadav, Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India, Birmingham

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(14)]

S. R. H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1063

कार्मवक, लोक जिकायत तथा पेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 4 िनवर ी, 2023

का.आ. 549.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज् य सरकार, गृि, कारागार

एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची की अजिसूचना ज्ञापन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.- 411/2022-3813/रांची, दिनांक

19.09.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, इलािाबाि बैंक (अब इंजडयन बैंक) को लगभग 1681.97 लाख रु. की

सिोष िाजन पहुुँचाने के संबंि में मेससव सरस्ट्वती कंपोनेंट मोटसव प्रा. जल, पंिीकृत कायावलय प्लॉट सं. 1012/13, ििैयावा,

पत्रालय-तारी, थाना-मुसादफल, छपरा, इसके जनिेिकों और गारंटीकतावओं श्री अरुण कुमार जतवारी और श्रीमती सरस्ट्वती

िेवी, इसके गारंटीकताव श्री ररतेि कुमार, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों व अन्यों के जवरुद्ध श्री फारुख रािीि बोखारी, उप

मिाप्रबंिक/आंचजलक प्रबंिक, इंजडयन बैंक, आंचजलक कायावलय, रांची द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िाराएं 120बी, 409, 420, 467, 468 और 471 के तित दकए गए िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) के जवषय में दिनांक

04.06.2022 को ििव कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी

अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/137/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2023

S.O. 549.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-411/2022-3813/Ranchi dated 19.09.2022,

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 04.06.2022 lodged by Shri Farukh Rashid Bokhari, Deputy General

Manager/Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Ranchi against M/s Saraswati Component Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office at Plot No. 1012/13, Dahaiyawa, Post- Tari, P.S. Musafil, Chapra, its Directors and Guarantors Shri

Arun Kumar Tiwari and Smt. Saraswati Devi, its Guarantor Shri Ritesh Kumar, unknown public servants and others

for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 1681.97 lakhs to the then Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank) punishable

under sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and any attempt, abetment

and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/137/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 िनवर ी, 2023

का.आ. 550.—केन् द्र सरकार,एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार, गृि (एम) जवभाग,

जतरुवनंतपुरम, की अजिसूचना िी.ओ. (एमएस.) सं.64/2022/गृि, दिनांक 25.03.2022 [एस.आर.ओ. सं. 327/2022

के रूप में प्रकाजित], के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से जनम्नजलजखत ताजलका में उजल्लजखत जनिावरती द्वारा िोखािड़ी/बेईमानी

से आयकर ररफंड प्राप्त कर आयकर जवभाग को 44,07,623/- रुपए की सिोषपूणव िाजन पहुुँचाने िो भारतीय िंड संजिता,

1064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1860 (1860 का 45) और आयकर अजिजनयम, 1961 (1961 का 43) के प्राविानों के तित िंडनीय अपराि(िों) िै, का

अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी

संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस

स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै।

ताजलका

क्र.सं.

जनिावररती का नाम

पैन नंबर

1) जनयोिा का नाम,

2)कायावलय का पता- आईटीआर/पैन डाटा के अनुसार

3) घर का पता- आईटीआर/पैन डाटा के अनुसार

नौसेना अजिकारी

प्रसाि सोनुने

सीइएसपीएस2909िे

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3)रािगुरे लेआउट ग्रेन माक्रेट के पीछे सागवान

एररया, बुलिाणा, मिाराष्ट्रा, भारत-443001

िेलेन्द्र ससंि कुश्वाि

बीएनटीपीके9111पी

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) आईएनएस एनआईआरबीआईके, नौसेना गोिी,

ग्रेटर मुबंई

3) 18, वन्िना, आरसी चचव के आगे, नेवी नगर,

कोलाबा, मुबंई, मिाराष्ट्र, भारत

आिुतोष ससंि

िीक्यूएफपीएस0527डी

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

3) ई-6, डीपीबीएस(पीिी) कॉलेि, अनूपिािर,

बुलंिििर, उत्तर प्रिेि, भारत 203390

मिजथल बलजप्पल

राहुल रमन

एक्यूएसपीआर6823क्यू

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) िाउस नं. 286 वाडव वी िरौल पो.मोगराल पुथुर

कसरगोड, केरल, भारत 671124

अप्पचथ कृष्णन

ियिेवन

एएफओपीिे6928बी

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) ििाि संिीवनी, आपूर्तव कायावलय प्रभारी,

नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुबंई

3) एमसीपीओ II, बौटस्ट्वैन स्ट्टोर (जवभाग)

आईएनएस जिक्रा, मुंबई मिाराष्ट्रा, भारत –

400005

िमेंद्र कुमार

एओवीपीके7786ई

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

रिनकोयोथ वीरटल

जसद्धाथव

सीईएसपीएस2620एल

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) िाउस नं. 150/ए, नोफ्रा-1, डबोजलम,गोवा,

भारत – 403801

पवन ससंि राठौर

बीएचडब्लल्यूपीआर 4770ए

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एंग्रेसक्वाडवन,

एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) VIII-जिम्मतपुर मल्ला पो.,िररपुर नायक,

िल्िवानी जिला, नैनीताल, उत्तराखण्ड, भारत

ओम जनगम

एिेडआरपीएन4261ई

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

पंकि जमश्रा

बीकेएपीएम1467िे

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1065

सुभम

ईडीडब्लल्यूपीएस 6373एच

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एंग्रेसक्वाडवन,

एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) ए-28, लक्ष्मी जविार, द्वारका मेरो स्ट्टेिन के पास

उत्तमनगर, दिल्ली, भारत

अक्षय दकिोर साली

सीईएसपीएस 3257पी

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) कोलाबा, मुबंई रामनाथली, कोलाबा, मुबंई,

मिाराष्ट्रा, भारत – 400001

जनिांत ससंि पोस्ट्वाल

बीएआईपीपी 3199एन

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) पी-231 पीके मागव, िामनगर, गुिरात,

भारत – 361150

सुजमत ससंि

सीईएसपीएस 2935सी

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) चेनामा- 904, नौसेना का अड्डाजलरटल जबनागा,

कवावर, कनावटका, भारत 581308

जवजपन जत्रपाठी

एआईएनपीटी 0975सी

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) 893/ए, नया अिोका गाडेन, भोपाल, मध्य

प्रिेि, भारत

रोिन कुमार ससंि

सीईएसपीएस 3247एफ

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) फ्लेट नं. 701, सेक्टर 32ए, रोयल जविन

एपाटवमेंटस, रावेट, पुणे, मिाराष्ट्रा,

भारत – 412101

भास्ट्कर

बीिेडएसपीबी 2149एफ

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) ईगल स्ट्क्वाड्रन, भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, कन्नूर

3) आईएनएस जवियुत, नौसेना डोक्याडव, मुंबई,

लायन गेट, मुबंई

रािकुमार िमाव

सीईएसपीएस 2630िे

1) नौसेना वेतन कायावलय, मुंबई

2) भारतीय नौसेना अकािमी, एजझमाला, कन्नूर

3) जवल गंगु चाक, जिरा नगर, कठुआ, िम्मु एडं

कश्मीर, भारत 184148

पुजलस जवभाग के कमवचारी

चंद्रन गणपजतयािान

बीसीयूपीिी 5851िे

1) जिला पुजलस कायावलय, कन्नूर, केरल

2) एआर केम्प, जसजवल स्ट्टेिन, कन्नूर

3) कारापेरावूर, थालास्ट्सेरी, कन्नूर

कराडका जवनोि कुमार

एएफडब्लल्यूपीवी 7711ई

1) जिला पुजलस कायावलय, कन्नूर, केरल

2) पेरावूर पुजलस स्ट्टेिन, पेरावूर, थालास्ट्सेरी,

कन्नूर

3) बेलवम, कराडका, कासरगोड, केरल,

भारत 671123

1066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जनिी क्षेत्र के कमवचारी

वेल्लुवा रायरोथ संिीप

बीिीबीपीएस 6884ए

िेवलेट पेकाडव एंटरप्राइि ग्लोबल सॉफ्ट प्राइवेट

जलजमटेड।

मजणकन परमबि, अंिारकांडय पी.ओ., कीझल्लूर,

कन्नूर-670612

जनिांथ पुन्नथेनवायनन

एएनआरपीपी 3632आर

1) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड

3) गुरूकुलम, थालास्ट्सेरी, कन्नूर

कोझुक्कुन्नोन जगररि

एडीिेपीिी 5641डी

1) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड

3) रािना जनवास पररयारम, कोलारी, पी.ओ.

थालास्ट्सेरी तालुक कन्नूर 16

दिनु मुिपरावण

एआईसीपीडी 1736िी

1) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड

2) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड, कन्नूर िाखा

3) पदिनिारे मुजलकोट िाउस

जगरीि कुमार

बालाकृष्णन

एिेपीपीबी 6203िे

1) एसबीआई लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड

2) एसबीआई लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड,

कासरगोड

3) श्रेयास, कक्कड़ पीओ, कन्नूर

िािुकप्पािान

बीओएचपीके 4721ई

1) ईडंसइण्ड बैंक जल.

थाज़्िे कंडी जनजिल

एएमकेपीएन 0959आर

ईडंसइण्ड बैंक जल.

कप्पडन िाउस, वडेस्ट्वरम मंदिर के पास, पी. ओ.

अरोली,कन्नूर, केरल, भारत 670566

सुिंर न्िालीले श्याम

बीवाईवीपीएस 5277एफ

1) ईडंसइण्ड बैंक जल.

जबनान्द्रिा बालाकृष्णन

एआईवाईपीबी 4626पी

1) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड

2) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड, कालीकट

3) सांथी, नट स्ट्रीट, वाटकारा, कालीकट

एल्िो थॉमस

एईडीपीटी1947सी

1) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड

2) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड, कन्नूर िाखा

संिीव अरायकांडी

छठम्बली

एएचसीपीए 5260बी

1) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड

2) बिाि आजलयांि लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी

जलजमटेड, टाजलपाराम्बािाखा, कन्नूर

3) गोजवन्िपुरम टेम्पल गेट, तेल्लीचेरी,

कन्नूर 670102

[फा. सं. 228/136/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1067

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2023

S.O. 550.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 64/2022/Home dated 25.03.2022, Home(M)

Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as S.R.O. No. 327/2022], hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of

the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the

offence(s) pertaining to the wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 44,07,623/- caused to the Income Tax Department by way of

fraudulent/dishonest refunds received by the assessees mentioned in the following table, punishable under the

provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

TABLE

Sl. No.

Name of the assesses

PAN Number

1) Name of the Employer,

2) Office Address - As per ITR/PAN data

3) Home Address – As per ITR/PAN data

NAVAL OFFICERS

Prasad Sonune

CESPS2909J

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) Rajgure Layout, Behind Grain Market,

Sagwan

Area,

Buldana,

Maharashtra,

India - 443001

Shailendra Singh Kushwah

BNTPK9111P

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) INS NIRBIK, Naval Dokyard, Greater

Mumbai

3) 18, Vandana, Ahead of RC Church, Navy

Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Ashutosh Singh

GQFPS0527D

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

3) E-6, DPBS(PG) College, Anoopshahr,

Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, India 203390

Madathil Valappil Rahul Raman

AQSPR6823Q

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) House No.286 Ward V Harual

P/O MogralPuthurKasargod, Kerala, Kerala,

India 671124

Appachath Krishnan Jaydevan

AFOPJ6928B

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Ship Sanjivani, Supply Office in charge,

Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

3) MCPO II, Boatswain Store (Dept.), INS

Shikra, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India – 400005

Dharmendra Kumar

AOVPK7786E

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

Rajan Koyoth Veetil Sidharth

CESPS2620L

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) House No.150/A, Nofra-1, Dabolim, Goa,

India - 403801

Pawan Singh Rathour

BHWPR4770A

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Angresquardon,

Ezhimala, Kannur

3) VIII – HimmatpurMalla P.O., Haripur

Nayak, Haldwani Dist., Nainital, Uttarakhand,

India

1068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Om Nigam

AZRPN4261E

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

Pankaj Mishra

BKAPM1467J

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

Subham

EDWPS6373H

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Angresquardon,

Ezhimala, Kannur

3) A-28, Laxmi Vihar, Near Dwarka More

Metro Stn. Uttamnagar, Delhi, India

Akshay Kishor Sali

CESPS3257P

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) Colaba, Mumbai Ramanathali, Colaba,

Mumbai, Maharashtra, India 400001

Nishant Singh Poswal

BAIPP3199N

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) P-231 PK Marg, Jamnagar, Gujarat,

India - 361150

Sumit Singh

CESPS2935C

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) Chenama – 904, Naval Base, Little Binaga,

Karwar, Karnataka, India 581308

Vipin Tripathi

AINPT0975C

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) 893/A, New Ashoka Garden, Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh, India

Roshan Kumar Singh

CESPS3247F

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) Flat No.701, Sector 32A, Royal Vision

Apartments,

Ravet,

Pune,

Maharashtra,

India 412101

Bhaskar

BZSPB2149F

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Eagle Squardon, Indian Naval Academy,

Kannur

3) INS Vidyut, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, Lion

Gate, Mumbai

Rajkumar Sharma

CESPS2630J

1) Naval Pay Office, Mumbai

2) Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, Kannur

3) VillGanguChak, Hira Nagar, Kathua, Jammu

& Kashmir, India 184148

POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS

Chandran Ganapathiyadan

BCUPG5851J

1) District Police Office, Kannur, Kerala

2) AR Camp, Civil Station, Kannur

3) Karaperavoor, Thalassery, Kannur

Karadka Vinod Kumar

AFWPV7711E

1) District Police Office, Kannur, Kerala

2) Peravoor Police Station, Peravoor,

Thalassery, Kannur

3) Berlam, Karadka, Kasaragod, Kerala,

India 671123

PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES

Velluva Rayaroth Sandeep

BGBPS6884A

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Global Soft Private

Limited.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1069

Manikan

Parambath,

Anjarakandy

P.O,

Keezhallur, Kannur-670612

Nishanth Punnathenvayanan

ANRPP3632R

1) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited

3) Gurukulam, Thalassery, Kannur

Kozhukkunnon Girish

ADJPG5641D

1) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited

3) Rajna Nivas Pariyaram, Kolari, P.O.

Thalassery Taluk Kannur 16

Dinu Muzhapravan

AICPD1736G

1) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited

2) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited, Kannur Branch

3) Padinjare Mullikot House

Gireesh Kumar Balakrishnan

AJPPB6203J

1) SBI Life Insurance Company Limited

2) SBI Life Insurance Company Limited,

Kasaragod

3) Sreyas, Kakkad .PO, Kannur

Shajukappadan

BOHPK4721E

1) Indusind Bank Ltd.

Thazhe Kandi Nijil

AMKPN0959R

Indusind Bank Ltd.

Kappadan House, Near Vadeswaram Temple

P.O Aroli, Kannur, Kerala India 670566

Sunder Nhalile Shyam

BYVPS5277F

1) Indusind Bank Ltd.

Binandradha Balakrishnan

AIYPB4626P

1) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited

2) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited, Calicut

3) Santhi, Nut Street, Vatakara Calicut

Eldho Thomas

AEDPT1947C

1) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited

2) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited, Kannur Branch

Sanjeev Arayakandy Chathambali AHCPA5260B

1) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited

2) Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company

Limited, Taliparamba Branch, Kannur

3) Govindapuram Temple Gate, Tellicherry,

Kannur 670102

[F. No. 228/136/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 551.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची की अजिसूचना सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-403/2022-3215/रांची, दिनांक 08.08.2022, के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री कुमार अजनमेि, मुख् य सतकवता अजिकारी, कोयला खिान भजवष् य जनजि संगठन, मुख् यालय,

िनबाि द्वारा झूठे/जाली िस्ट् तावेजों को िमा करके कोयला खिान भजवष् य जनजि क्षेत्रीय कायावलय, क्षेत्र-।।, रांची से

वास्ट् तजवक िावेिारों के अजतररक् त अन् य व् यजियों द्वारा केन् द्रीय कोयला क्षेत्र जलजमटेड के 23 पूवव-कमवचाररयों की भजवष् य

1070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जनजि की फिी जनकासी के संबंि में दिनांक 08.06.2021 को ििव कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों), िो भारतीय

िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपरठत िारा 420, 409, 468 तथा 471 तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िण्डनीय िैं, का

अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र

एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/139/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2023

S.O. 551.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.-10/C.B.I.-403/2022-3215/Ranchi dated 08.08.2022, Home,

Prison and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) arising out

of the complaint dated 08.06.2021 lodged by Shri Kumar Animesh, Chief Vigilance Officer, Coal Mines Provident

Fund Organisation, Headquarters Office, Dhanbad, pertaining to fraudulent withdrawal of Provident Fund of 23

Ex-Employees of Central Coal Field Limited by the persons other than the genuine claimants from Coal Mines

Provident Fund Regional Office, Region-II, Ranchi by submitting false/forged documents, punishable under section

120B r/w sections 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/139/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 552.—केन् द्र सरकार, एति द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज् य सरकार, गृि 4 िाखा, गृि

मामलों और न् याय जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.08/08/2022-1एच4(3एच4)/2695, दिनांक 26.04.2022, के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से पंिाब नेिनल बैंक को लगभग 11.31 करोड़ रूपए की सिोषपूणव िाजन काररत करने के जलए श्री मुकेि कुमार

कटाररया, मुख् य प्रबंिक, पंिाब नेिनल बैंक, अंतरराष् रीय बैंककंग िाखा, इंडजस्ट्रयल एररया-ए, जमलरगंि, लुजियाना द्वारा

दिनांक 13.01.2022 को (1) मेससव ऋजष गंगा पावर कॉपोरेिन जल.,बी-23, फेि-II, फोकल पॉइंट लुजियाना

(2) श्री रजित मेिरा (3) रािेि मेिरा (4) श्री राित मेिरा (5) श्रीमती गीजतका मेिरा (6) श्री अिय नागरथ (7) श्री

रोजित नागरथ (8) श्रीमती प्रीजत मेिरा, लुजियाना के सभी जनवासी (9) श्री रणिीप ससंि, जनवासी अमृतसर (10) मेससव

रजित जमल् क प्रा.जल., 102, जवकास नगर, लुजियाना (11) मेससव रजित पेंट्स प्रा.जल. (12) अज्ञात लोक सेवकों और अन् य

के जवरूद्ध ििव कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) तथा भारतीय िंड

संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) के तित िंडनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न

दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/142/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1071

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2023

S.O. 552.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/08/2022-1H4(3H4)/2695 dated 26.04.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 13.01.2022 lodged by Shri Mukesh Kumar Kataria, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank,

International Banking Branch, Industrial Area-A, Millerganj, Ludhiana against (1) M/s Rishi Ganga Power

Corporation Ltd., B-23, Phase-II, Focal Point Ludhiana, (2) Shri Rajit Mehra, (3) Rajesh Mehra, (4) Shri Rahat

Mehra, (5) Smt. Geetika Mehra, (6) Shri Ajay Nagrath, (7) Shri Rohit Nagrath, (8) Smt. Preeti Mehra, all resident of

Ludhiana, (9) Shri Randeep Singh, r/o Amritsar, (10) M/s Rajit Milk Pvt. Ltd., 102, Vikas Nagar, Ludhiana,

(11) M/s Rajit Paints Pvt. Ltd., (12) unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx.

Rs. 11.31 crores to the Punjab National Bank punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)

and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/142/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली,18 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 553.—केन् द्र सरकार, एति द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट् थान राज् य सरकार, गृि (िीआर-

v) जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूचना सं.एफ.19(74)िोम-5/2022, दिनांक 25.07.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से

श्री जगररराि वमाव, क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक् त (केन् द्र), केन् द्रीय सिन, ब्ल लॉक ।, तीसरी मंजिल, ए-सी/3-7, सेक् टर10, जवद्यािर

नगर, ियपुर के जवरूद्ध अनुजचत लाभ प्राप् त करने के संबंि में के.अ.ब्ल यूरो, भ्र.जन.िाखा, ियपुर में ििव कराई गई जिकायत

सं. सीए0302022ए0077 से उत्पन्न, भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49)(2018 के अजिजनयम 16

द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े

या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से

उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट् थान राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/138/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2023

S.O. 553.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(74)Home-5/2022 dated 25.07.2022, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) punishable under section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), arising out of the complaint No.

CA0302022A0077 registered at CBI, ACB, Jaipur against Shri Giriraj Verma, Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Kendriya Sadan, Block I, 3rd Floor, A-C/3-7, Sector 10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur for undue advantage and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/138/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

1072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 554.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 749/ पीओएल-2, दिनांक 27.09.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से

श्री बी.यू. वाघमरे, प्रभारी - जसजवल, जनलिय उप क्षेत्र, वेस्ट्टनव कोलफील्डस जलजमटेड, वानी क्षेत्र, यवतमल के जवरूद्ध,

श्री अजनल कुमार ससंि, जनवासी चाुँिनी नगर, वाडव सं. 06, घुगुस, जिला - चंद्रपुर द्वारा दिनांक 23.09.2022 को

भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के

तित ििव कराई गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 06.10.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला

आरसी0282022ए0009 ििव दकया गया िै, से उत् पन् न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

(कायोत् तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 06.10.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/143/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023

S.O. 554.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 749/Pol-2 dated 27.09.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 06.10.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 23.09.2022 lodged by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, R/o Chandni Nagar, Ward No. 06, Ghugus, District -

Chandrapur against Shri B.U. Waghmare, Incharge – Civil, Niljay Sub Area, Western Coalfields Limited, Wani Area,

Yavatmal punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16

of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0009 has been registered on 06.10.2022 and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/143/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 555.—केन्द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 की 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई-1622/सी.आर.788/पीओएल-2 दिनांक 12.10.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सिमजत से, श्री

दिनेि कुमार करडे, प्रबंिक (जपट प्रभारी), िुगावपुर रैयतवाड़ी कोजलयरी सं. 3, वेस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, चन्द्रपुर क्षेत्र,

चन्द्रपुर के जवरुद्ध श्री अंकुि िांताराम पोतनवर, पुत्र श्री िांताराम पोतनवर, सामान्य मििूर, िुगावपुर रैयतवाड़ी

कोजलयरी सं. 3, वेस्ट्टनव कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, चन्द्रपुर क्षेत्र द्वारा दिनांक 10.10.2022 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 की 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित ििव की गई

जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर 13.10.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला RC0282022A0010 ििव दकया गया िै, से

उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए

दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक

13.10.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/141/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1073

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2023

S.O. 555.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 788/Pol-2 dated 12.10.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 13.10.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 10.10.2022 lodged by Shri Ankush Shantaram Potanwar, S/o Shri Shantaram Potanwar, General

Mazdoor, Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery No.3, Western Coalfields Limited, Chandrapur Area against Shri Dinesh

Kumar Karade, Manager (Pit Incharge), Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery No.3, Western Coalfields Limited, Chandrapur

Area, Chandrapur punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by

Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0010 has been registered on 13.10.2022 and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/141/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 माचव, 2023

का.आ. 556.—केन्‍द्र सरकार, एतदद्वारा ददल््ली विशेष पुवलस स््थापना अविवनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठित िारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शवियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज््य सरकार, गृह, कारागार

एिं आपदा प्रबंिन विभाग, रांची की अविसूचना सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-415/2021-2620/रांची, ददनांक 28.06.2022, के

माध्यम से जारी सम्मवत से, बीसीसीएल को लगभग 315.48 करोड़ रु. और ईसीएल को लगभग 8.86 करोड़ रु. की सदोष

हावन पहुुँचाने के संबंि में मेससस महालक्षमी इन्‍दराकॉन्‍दरैक्ट प्रा. वल. ि 14 अन्‍दय के विरुद्ध श्रीमती अलका शेखर, अिर

सवचि, कोयला मंत्रालय, नई ददल्ली द्वारा भारतीय दण्ड संवहता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठित िारा 420

तथा भ्रष्टाचार वनिारण अविवनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार वनिारण अविवनयम, 1988 में ददनांक

26.07.2018 को दकए गए संशोिन-पूिस जैसा दक विवहत दकया गया था।) की िारा 13(2) सपठित िारा 13(1)(डी) के

तहत दकए गए दण्डनीय अपराि(िों) के विषय में ददनांक 26.09.2018 को दजस करायी गई वशकायत, वजसके आिार पर

ददनांक 13.01.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी 2192021 ई0001 /सीबीआई/ईओ-I/ददल्ली दजस दकया गया, से

उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्‍दिेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी दुष्प्प्रयास, दुष्प्प्रेरणा और/अथिा

षड्यंत्र एिं/अथिा उसी संव्यिहार में दकए गए या उन्‍दहीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्‍दय अपराि का अन्‍दिेषण करने के वलए

ददल्ली विशेष पुवलस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शवियों और क्षेत्राविकार का विस्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाि से ददनांक

13.01.2021 से) समस्त झारखंड राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/140/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2023

S.O. 556.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.-10/C.B.I.-415/2021-2620/Ranchi dated 28.06.2022, Home,

Prison and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 13.01.2021) to the whole State of Jharkhand for

investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 26.09.2018 lodged by Smt. Alka Shekhar, Under

Secretary, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi based on which a CBI case RC2192021E0001/CBI/EO-I/Delhi has been

registered on 13.01.2021 against M/s Mahalaxmi Infracontract Pvt. Ltd. and 14 others for causing wrongful loss of

approx. Rs. 315.48 crores to the BCCL and loss of approx. Rs. 8.86 crores to the ECL punishable under sections 120B

r/w 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f.

26.07.2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or

for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/140/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

1074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जवद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 557.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन पावर जग्रड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ

इंजडया जलजमटेड के जनम्नजलजखत कायावलयों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमवचारीवृंि ने सिंिी का कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया

िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै:

पावर जग्रड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,

765/400/220 केवी सबस्ट्टेिन, ग्राम- िलालसर,

पोस्ट्ट- िमसर, जिला- बीकानेर (रािस्ट्थान)- 334601

पावर जग्रड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,

ऊतरी क्षेत्र-1, 400/220 के.वी. उपकेंद्र, एन.एच.-12,

टोंक रोड, चाकसू, ियपुर,

रािस्ट्थान- 303901

पावर जग्रड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड,

400/220 के.वी. उपकेंद्र, मोिनपुर गाडा,

10 दकलोमीटर माईल स्ट्टोन,

दिल्ली रोड सिारनपुर (उत्तर प्रिेि)- 247451

[फा. सं. 11011/02/9/2023-सिंिी]

जितेि िॉन, आर्थवक सलािकार (प्रभारी रा.भा.)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 13th April, 2023

S.O. 557.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

765/400/220 KV Substation, Village- Jalalsar,

Post- Jamsar, Dist.-Bikaner (Rajasthan)- 334601

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

Northern Region-1, 400/220 KV Substation, NH-12,

Tonk Road, Chaksu, Jaipur,

Rajasthan – 303901

3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

400/220 KV Substation, Mohanpur Gada,

10KM Mile Stone, Delhi Road,

Saharanpur (U.P.)- 247451

[F. No. 11011/02/9/2023-Hindi]

JITHESH JOHN, Economic Advisor (In-Charge O.L.)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1075

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 558.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj कांडला पोटव रस्ट्ट izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (91/2013) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS A

[la- ,y-37011/01/2013-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2023

S.O. 558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/01/2013– IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 24^th January, 2023.

Reference: (CGITA) No- 91/2013

1. The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative office Building, P.B.No.50,

Gnadhidham (Kutch)-370201

…..First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No. 586, 12-C,

Gnadhidham(Kutch)-370201

….Second Party

Advocate For the First Party : Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel

Advocate For the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/01/2013-IR(B-II) dated 18.04.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

1076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the KPT Management in not regularization the services of

Shri Kishan Ramji, D/R Plumber even though he has completed 240 days in many years since

December, 1998 is justified? What relief the applicant is entitled to?”

1. The matter was taken up today. Second Party workman Shri Kishan Ramji is represented through Ld.

Counsel Shri N. H. Rathod and First Party employer is represented through Ld. Counsel Shri M. K. Patel and Shri K.

V. Gadhia. Both the parties have drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards SP’s application (Ex. 10) dated

10.01.2023 along with union’s letter dated 06.01.2023, wherein it is prayed that the workman does not want to pursue

the matter further. Perusal of application Ex.10 dated 10.01.2023 and union’s letter M-10/1 shows that the workman

has made a prayer for the withdrawal of this case. Withdrawal is not opposed by First Party. The Second party is

permitted to withdraw the reference as prayed for. Therefore, the reference is disposed of as withdrawn by the second

party union/workmen.

2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication

U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 559.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj सेंरल cSad vkQ bafM;k izca/k rarz ds lac) 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[;k (98/2012) dks

izdkf’kr djrh gS A

[la- ,y-12011/100/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2023

S.O. 559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 98/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/100/2011–IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/98/2012

Present: P. K. SRIVASTAVA H.J.S..( Retd)

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Bank Karmachari Sangathan

F-1 Karm Bhoomi,Tripti Vihar,

Opp.Engineering College

Ujjain(M.P.)

…Workman

Versus

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1077

The Assistant General Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Zonal Office, 9, Arera Hills

Bhopal (M.P.)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on 29-9-22.)

As per letter dated 12/9/2012 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-12011/100/2011(IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in Khanvilkar, Ex-Head

Cashier vide order dated 21/1/2008 is legal and justified?what relief the concerned

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 he was first appointed in the Bank on

21-11-1983 as a peon. He was promoted in due course. While he was posed as a Head Cashier in the Akodia Mandi

Branch of the Bank. He was issued a charge sheet with allegations of misconduct. He submitted his written reply on

the charge sheet. The Controlling Authority decided to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry was conducted and the

charges were held proved by the Inquiry Officer. He was issued a show cause notice on the basis of Inquiry Report

and after considering his reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 21-1-2008 dismissing him

from his services. According to the workman, the inquiry conducted was not just and proper . The charges were not

proved from the inquiry report and the punishment was disproportionate to the charge without considering the fact

that his record before the punishment was unblemished.

3. The Management has controverted the allegation with the pleading that the inquiry was conducted in just and

proper manner. The Inquiry Officer rightly held the charges proved and the punishment was not disproportionate to

the charge. Accordingly the management prayed that the reference be answered against the workman, holding the

action of the Management and punishment justified in law.

4. The following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 18-3-2016:-

1)Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman is just, proper and legal?

2)Whether, the charges alleged against the workman are proved from evidence adduced in

inquiry proceedings.?

3)Whether the punishment of dismissal from service is legal and proper?

4)If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?

ISSUE NO.1:-

Issue No.1 was taken as preliminary issue. The workman examined himself on oath. He was cross-

examined by management. He proved documents Exhibit W1 to W4. The management examined its witness and

proved the documents Exhibit M1 and Exhibit M2 which are inquiry papers mainly.

Preliminary Issue No.1 was decided after evidence vide order dated 6-10-2021. The Departmental Inquiry

was held legal and proper. This order is part of this Award.

Parties were given opportunity for their evidence on remaining issues. No evidence was given by any party

on remaining issues on 6-9-2022. Arguments of learned counsel for workman Shri Arun Patel was heard. None

appeared for the Management at the time of arguments. The management did not file any written argument also. The

workman learned counsel has filed written arguments which has been taken on record. I have gone through the record

and the written argument as well.

ISSUE NO.2:-

The charges against the workman are as follows:-

(1) When he was posted in Branch Okadia Mandi on 14-3-2007, he received from

Account holder Yusuf Khan Rs.61,000/- to deposit in his account no.5511 and

issued receipt counter foil No.7459 under his signature with the seal of the Bank

1078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

but he did not deposit the amount nor did he made any entry regarding deposit

of the amount in the Account of the Account Holder.

(2) While working in the said branch on 21-3-2007 the Account holder Yusuf Khan

put up a withdrawal form for deposit of Rs.90,000/- from his account 5511 in the

branch, the workman paid the amount without getting it duly passed by the

Authorized Officer just in order to conceal his wrongful Act of not depositing

Rs.61,000/- as mentioned in Charge No.1 in the account of the Account holder.

(3) The workman paid on 21-3-2007 Rs.90,000/- to the Account Holder Yusuf Khan.

He took that amount from the private person Shyam Sundar Agarwal in cash as

loan and paid it to Yusuf Khan. This loan was not returned to Shyam Sundar

Agarwal till 11-4-2007. He made a complaint in this respect to the Bank.

Perusal of the inquiry papers shows that the prosecution produced the counter slip regarding the deposit and

other documents, details mentioned in the report. They have also examined witness MW1 and MW2 who have

supported the charges. From the perusal of these documents, in the light of statement of Management witness

produced in the inquiry, I find no occasion to hold that the finding of the Inquiry Officer, holding the charges proved

is against law or perverse. Hence taking into consideration the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the charges levelled

against the workman are proved. This Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.

10.

ISSUE NO. 3:-

Learned Counsel for the workman has laid his main emphasis on this Issue No.3. According to him the

charges levelled are misconduct in para 5D and 5J of Bi Partite Settlement which is as follows:-

5(d):- Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its

customers;

5(j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence

involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss.

But they are not covered in these provision but rather they are covered in para 7C, 7D and 7G which is as follows:-

7(c ):- Neglect of work, negligence in performing duties;

7(d):-Breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running of any

department.

7(g):-Attempt to collect or collecting moneys within the premises of the bank without the

previous permission of the Management or except as allowed by any rule or law for the time

being in force.

11.

Para 7(c ) ,(d),(g) are minor misconduct whereas the workman has been punished treating the charges as

major misconduct. This is unjust on the part of the management. Further the Management did not consider the fact

that the workman was on the verge of retirement. He had put in more than 25 years of service in the bank and his

record was unblemished. In these circumstances, the management was under obligation to consider other

punishments and also to consider as to why the other punishment provided would not have been suitable for the

workman in the case in hand.

12.

It is the duty of a Banker or any employee to maintain obsolete integrity while discharging his duties. Every

employee is expected to follow this Rule. The charges proved against the workman show that by retaining the amount

which was to be deposited with the Bank, he committed an act of moral turpitude also. After comparative study of

para 7 & 5 and considering the nature of the charges, I am not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the

workman that the charges are only of minor misconduct. Accordingly, the charges are held to be major misconduct.

13.

Following decision are referred to state the settled preposition of law in this respect:-

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:

14.

“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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1079

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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

1080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to

be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.

15.

It is established preposition of law that this Tribunal will not interfere with the punishment awarded until it is

satisfied that the punishment so awarded is not shockingly disproportionate to the charge to warrant interference by

this Tribunal.

16.

The punishment awarded in the case in hand is one of the punishment mentioned in the Bi Partite Settlement

for acts of gross misconduct. The punishment order and order of Appeal does not whisper as to why the Authority did

not consider other punishment for the workman in the light of the fact that before that he had spent more than 25 years

of unblemished service with the management. True that the management could award the maximum punishment of

dismissal of service but when other options are available to the Management with respect to the charges, it is under

obligation to consider why the other options regarding punishment would not be fit in the case in hand and why only

dismissal be the appropriate punishment and by not doing the Management is not justified in maximum punishment

of dismissal for one lapse on the part of the workman who spent more than 25 years of unblemished service time with

the Management.

17.

Accordingly the punishment of dismissal awarded by the Management to the workman is held justified in

law and the workmen is awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service from the date of punishment

order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

18.

ISSUE NO.4:-

In the light of the findings recorded above the Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.

19.

On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-

A.The action of the management of Central Bank of India in

Khanvilkar, Ex-Head Cashier vide order dated 21/1/2008 is held not justified.

B. The workman is awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service from date 21-

1-2008. He is also held entitled to admissible benefits in case of compulsory retirement given

to the workman as per rules.

C.P arties to bear their own cost.

20.

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: 29-9-2022

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 560.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ;qdks बैंक izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdaksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (50/2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS A

[la- ,y-12012/33/2007-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2023

S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.50/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/33/2007 – IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1081

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol

REFERENCE CASE No. 50 OF 2007

PARTIES: Pratap Kumar Dutta.

Vs.

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, UCO Bank, Durgapur Main Branch.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management:

Shampa Chatterjee, Learned Advocate.

For the Union/Workman: Mr. P. K. Das, Learned Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Banking.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.10.2022

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-

12012/33/2007-IR(B-II) dated 06.07.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employers,

that is the Management of UCO Bank and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank, in dismissing Mr. Pratap Kumar Dutta,

Assistant Head Cashier, P.F.M. No. 32411 w.e.f. 30.03.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

1. On receiving Order No. L-12012/33/2007-IR(B-II) dated 06.07.2007 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 50 of 2007 was registered on 26.07.2007

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their advocates.

2. Written statements were filed by both Management of Bank and the delinquent workman. The matter was

fixed for evidence on 10.11.2007 but no witness was examined in the case. On 31.10.2022 the case is fixed for cross-

examination of Management Witness. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the delinquent employee Pratap Kumar

Duta is present. None appeared for the Bank Management. It is 12:15 pm now.

3. Mr. P. K. Das submitted that he was representing Pratap Kumar Dutta, the Bank employee but since long the

employee did not turn up, and communicated to the advocate that he is no more inclined to proceed with the case.

4. It is gathered from the written statement submitted on behalf of the Bank that the petitioner was dismissed

due to his unauthorized absence from duty from 25.01.2000 and that he did not deposit the advance in respect to LFC

dues.

5. This is a case of the year 2007 and after several opportunities given to the dismissed bank employee to

adduce his evidence, the witness did not turnup for his cross-examination. Under such circumstances it is presumed

that the parties have no dispute regard the subject matter under Reference.

Hence,

ORDER

That a No Dispute Award be passed in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award be sent to the

Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and necessary action. The Reference is accordingly

disposed of.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

1082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 561.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj बैंक ऑफ इंजडया izca/k rarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k vklulksy ds iapkV lanHkZ la- (11/2014) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS A

[la- ,y-12012/53/2014-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th April, 2023

S.O. 561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/53/2014 – IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE No. 11 OF 2014

PARTIES: Rita Prasad

(Dependent wife of Late Pintu Prasad).

Vs.

Management of Bank of India, Domohani Branch.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

For the Management:

Mr. Uday Chand Mukherjee, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Banking.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

14.12.2022

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-12012/53/2014-IR(B-II) dated 25/27.08.2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employers, that is the Management of Bank of India in relation to its Domohani Branch under Howrah Zone and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India in relation to its Domohani Branch

under Howrah Zone, in imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement with

superannuation benefit w.e.f. 30.05.2009 on Shri Pintu prasad, Ex-Staff Clerk of Domohani

Branch, vide order No. ZO/HWH/IR/86 dated 30.05.2009 is just and legal? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1083

1. On receiving Order No. L-12012/53/2014-IR(B-II) dated 25/27.08.2014 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11 of 2014 was registered on 16.09.2014

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

2. The case was fixed up on 06.12.2022 for hearing of substitution petition dated 05.06.2018. Mr. P. K. Das,

learned advocate represented the petitioner. Perused the application wherein it is stated that Pintu Prasad, ex-

employee of Bank of India, Domohani Branch died on 03.01.2018 leaving behind Rita Prasad, his wife. Mr. P. K. Das

submitted that since filing of the substitution petition the petitioner did not communicate with him and the petition

may be disposed of. Considered. The substitution petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. The industrial dispute in

this Reference case is accordingly disposed in the form of “No Dispute Award”.

Hence,

ORDERED

A No Dispute Award is drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be

sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 562.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj बैंक ऑफ़ cMksnk ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2 /kuckn ds iapkV (13/2015) izdkf”kr djrh

gSA

[la- ,y- 12012/79/2014 -vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 6th April, 2023

S.O. 562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen.

[No. L- 12012/79/2014 – IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 13 OF 2015.

PARTIES: Sh. Ram Niwas, S/O Late Suresh Prasad,

Village: Sultanpur,

PO: Kanaihapur PS: Mokama, Patna (Bihar)

Vs.

The Dy. General Manager,

Bank of Baroda

Zonal Office, 4th Floor, Anand Bihar,

West Boring Canal Road,

1084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PATNA (BIHAR) 800001

Order No. L-12012/79/2014-IR(B-II) dt. 17.02.2015

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr.R.R.Prasad, Ld. Advocate

State:

Bihar Industry : Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26^th April,2022

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-12012/79/2014-IR (B-I)) dt. 17.02.2015

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BOB to terminate the service of workman Sri

Ram Niwas was correct and valid? What relief the workman was entitled for?”

On receipt of the Order No. L-12012/79/2014 --IR (B-II) dated 17.02.2015 of the reference from the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered as Reference

case No. 13 of 2015 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Post to

the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on 29.04.2015 date fixed and to file their written

statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Post were sent

to the parties concerned.

2. On registration of the Reference on 09.03.2015, the case started in motion for proceeding with both contending

under Reference filed Written Statement of claim /rejoinder. The case started rolling out for proceeding. Advancing

towards merit on completion of claim /counter claim with rejoinders by both sides the proceeding moved up to subject

matter to fix evidence for workman. Finally with written arguments by both the rival parties the matter appears to

have been reserved for answering the Reference in Award.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the Written Statement by the petitioner are required to be

enumerated which reads as hereunder:

That the petitioner namely Ram Niwas S/o Late Suresh Prasad, of village: Sultanpur, PO: Kanhaipur, Distt:

Patna was appointed by the Management of Bank of Baroda against the permanent vacancy to discharge the

duties of a peon w.e.f. 01.10.1993.

ii) That the workman concerned even after rendering his service as Peon to the satisfaction of the

management as permanent employee but the Management just to deprive him from his legitimate right,

showing him temporary workman and paying him less wages.

iii) That in the mean time the Management had drawn panel of temporary workmen who performed the duties

of a peon/canteen boy for permanent absorption as a peon and his name was placed on Serial No. 17 of the

said list.

iv) That the OP/Management regularized the services of some barring few including the name of the workman.

v) When he approached the OP/Management with a demand for regularization of his service in accordance

with aforesaid Circular the OP/Management illegally terminated his services w.e.f 03.12.1996 without

giving notice or notice of pay in payment of retrenchment compensation under provision of Sec. 25 –F of

the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947.

vi) That being aggrieved by the action of the OP/Management the workman raised as Industrial Dispute against

his illegal retrenchment before the Asstt. Labour commissioner ( C ) Patna and upon failure in conciliation

culminated as Reference as Industrial Dispute referred by the Government of India.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1085

vii) As before termination the OP/Management neither issued any notice or paid him notice pay in lieu of notice

nor did follow the statutory provision of Sec. 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947 contrary to the fact

the workman had completed 240 days attendance in each and every year preceding 12 months from the date

of retrenchment .i.e. 31.12.1996.

viii) So the action of the Management in not regularizing the services of the workman concerned is not only

discriminatory and arbitrary rather unjustified and against the principle of natural justice.

4. The OP/ Management contested the case by filing written statement denying the case as well as the allegation of

the Petitioner

The workman namely Ram Niwas on being engaged as Casual /Temporary basis for a period 237 days from

April 1993 to Sept.,1995 intermittently at Mokama Branch neither against any clear vacant post nor

authorized/Sanctioned by the competent authority and even without following rules of engagement for

temporary employees including call for Sponsoring Employment Exchange .Hence his engagement was

illegal. And his appointment letter was not issued and nor he has any locus standi to stake claim for

regularization as per rules/norms

ii) His appointment has been projected as Stop Gap arrangement in order to justified exigencies by the Branch

Manager, Mokama and presently he is not working in the Bank.

iii) Mokama Branch only engaged him for passing contingencies of work intermittently on day to day basis

with starting his duty from morning and ended with the completion of the work for which he was engaged

,so question of issuance of appointment letter does not arise nor subsequent reinstatement in the Bank

iv) That no relationship exists between the employer and workmen and the person who is posing himself to be

called workman.

v) That the workman concerned is not all workman as defined in Sec. 2(S) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

vi) That appointment of Sub-staff in Banks is governed by laid down statutory rules and guidelines, as received

from Government of India from time to time.

vii) That in terms of the laid down rules/directions received from Government of India, employment of persons

in Subordinate Cadre in the Bank’s service has to be made through the medium of employment Exchange in

addition to advertisement in local newspaper where the vacancy arise.

viii) That the Bank has laid down eligibility criteria for appointment in Sub-Staff Cadre which specifies minimum

and maximum age limit, educational qualification etc, of the candidates.

ix) That Bank is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Further, appointment on the Bank is

governed by certain statutory rules and guidelines received room the Government from time to time. In terms

of the directions issued by the Central Government, employment of persons in sub-staff cadre should be done

through Employment Exchange as also by advertisement for the post in the area where the vacancy is

declared. In so far as the workman concerned he was never sponsored by the Employment Exchange and on

this ground his claim seeking employment in the Banks to be rejected.

x) That ,any claim for regularization is dependent upon the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria laid down by the

Bank viz, their Sponsoring ship through employment Exchange etc and most importantly their engagement

should be against sanctioned vacancy duly authorized by the Competent Authority .

xi) As the Bank is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India having certain statutory rules and

guidelines so received from the Government from time to time .As regard appointment of sub staff in Banks

is governed by laid down statutory rules and guidelines as received from Government of India from time to

time

5. In its rejoinder the OP/management emphatically denies all the point wise claims on the issues raised by the

workman with reiteration that the claim of the petitioner is baseless frivolous and is not tenable having no merit at

all. In essence service to the workman will amount to backdoor entry in the Bank which is a Public Sector

Undertaking and any such entry will go against the fundamental rights of the Citizen and will violate the right to

equal opportunity in public service ,legal pronouncement and law of the land laid down by the Apex Court .

6. Through the evidence the workman recorded on affidavit and he reaffirmed to have been appointed by the

Management of Bank of Baroda against the permanent vacancy to discharge the duties of Peon with working hours

from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and sometimes even beyond the scheduled time in exigency. The Zonal Office issued a

communicated for preparation of list of workmen who have completed 90 days attendance in preceding 29.02.1996

.But to his dismay the Management regularized services of some workmen from above list but did not care for

1086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

others. But after completion of due process his name had been left out .When the workman approached several time

for regularization of his services in accordance with aforesaid circular, the Management illegally terminated his

services w.e.f. 03.12.1996 without granting him any hearing or payment of retrenchment compensation. Over the

engagement of workman for passing contingencies of work intermittently on day to day basis cannot challenge and or

deny

7. The workman submitted list of documents with copies thereof through Affidavit:

I) List of the Circular marked as Annexure -1 issued by Bihar State Bank of Baroda Employees Association for

regularization of their services. Marking as Annexure 1 and seeking data of temporary workmen as on

29.02.1996 marking as A-1.

ii) List of the workmen drawing out a panel of temporary workmen showing the workman’s name in Sl. No.

17 marking as Annexure 2

iii) Letter from Senior Manger,(P), Bank of Baroda for sending factual position of the workmen who have

completed 90 days attendance marking as Annexure -3

iv) Letter of the Sr. Branch Manager about workman’s attendance for the period from 12.04.1993 to

30.09.1995 as Annexure -4

v) Copy of the CPIO of Bank of Baroda with regard to reply of the workman’s quarry marking as Annexure -

8. Emphasing heavily upon the Apex Court Judgments OP/Management filed documents in their defence which

are as hereunder:

a) Photocopy of Judgment in Civil AppealNo.3595-2 3612 of 1999.The Secretary State of Karnataka &

Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Other,reported in SC-2006 (L&S) 753- supreme Court of India.

b) Internet copy of judgment in Case No. Appeal (Civil) -2195 of 2007-Hindustran Aermaitocs Ltd/ Vs.

Dam Bahadur Sg & Others reported in SCC-2007( 6)7,Supreme Court of India.

c) Internet copy of judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7392 of 2014- State of Bihar & Others Vs. Chandreshwar

Pathak, reported in SCC-2014 (13)232 Supreme Court of India,

d) Photocopy of judgment in L.P.A. Case No. 248 of 2014-Suman Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand 2016(i)-JLJR

Jharkhand High Court.

e) Photocopy of judgment in L.P.A. Case No. 268 of 2012 Bipin Kumar Verma Vs. Uco Bank, Dhanbad

of Jharkhand High Court Ranchi

Photocopy of Tripartite Settlement dated 18.03.2008 between Bank of Baroda and All India Bank of

Baroda Employees Federation (recognized union)

9. Going by the evidence so submitted through Affidavit in writing by the workman side it states in Annexure -4 dt.

24.02.2019 showing total days of attendance rendered service to the Bank commencing from 12.04.1993 to

30.09.1995 taking into the base period April,1993 to Sept.,1995 preceding to his alleged termination , the data

shows to the total 237 number of days that the workman worked notably less than 240 days as claimed by the

workman in written submission of claim by the workman and also mandatory for getting coverage/protection under

Sec. 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947.The Attendance Statement Sheet was under seal and signature of the

OP/Bank Authority with countersigned by the workman thereon.

10. As per the written statement of claim and the documents filed by the workman vis a vis the evidence on affidavit

submitted by the workman himself before this Tribunal dated 24.04.2019 following discrepencies are found:-

i) In Written statement he had mentioned at point 12 that he has completed 240 days each and every year of

working in the Bank , whereas the documents filed by him and affirmed through affidavit in para 7

mentioning the documents as Annexure -4 has total number of days worked reflect only 237 days.

ii) In the written statement in at the same point No. 12 he has mentioned that he has worked for more than

240 days in preceding 12 months period from the date of his retrenchment ,i.e., 31.12.1996 whereas

through the documents filed by him at Annexure -4 as referred in para -7 of the Affidavit of the Workman

his total number of days worked during the 12 preceding months from the date of his retrenchment comes

to 106 days only.

As such his both the claims of working more than 240 days in each year of his working and that he has

worked more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his retrenchment is not true as

per the above findings.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1087

11. As regards the example of other having been appointed on regular basis by the same Bank cannot be considered

as reference in the instant Industrial Dispute is limited to the case of the concerned workman and not for others.

12. On consideration of the facts put forward by the workman himself through the documents filed by him and

evidences through affidavit he has not been able to substantiate his claim .On perusal of the record and documents

field by the workman himself there is no evidence of issue any appointment letter or termination letter from the

O.P./management .As such it can be established through the evidence that the workman Sri Ram Niwas has been

terminated from service of the management of Bank of Baroda.

13. However, on the face of record made available before this Tribunal it is beyond doubt that the workman Shri

Ram Niwas has worked under Bank of Baroda on various dates engaged during the period 12.04.1993 to 30.091995

on intermittent basis and that he has not been removed from the service of his engagement through notice or order. As

such the management of Bank of Baroda has failed in its duty in practicing the fair labour policy . As such the

workman is entitled for compensation under Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947.

14. As the workman has worked with the OP/management intermittently it will not be prudent and proper to award

any compensation based on number of years worked and equivalent to the wages as the matter is very old and more

than twenty five years have elapsed from his last engagement by the Bank and the fact that payments of wages

were very meager, and that the workman has been fighting his case for many years, this Tribunal is of the opinion of

awarding some lump sum compensation to the workman. Therefore compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh) only is awarded as compensation under the provisions of Sec. 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act., 1947 to

meet the expenses incurred by him in raising and fighting his case for such a long period.

15. The compensation must be paid to the workman concerned by the Management of Bank of Baroda within

three months from the date of issuance of Notification of this Award,

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 563.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj पजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (137/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-41011/46/2013-vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.137/2013) 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- 41011/46/2013 – IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated : 30^th December 2022

Reference: (CGITA) No- 137/2013

1. The Divisional Personnel Officer,

Western Railway,

Western Railway Division Office,

PO: Ratlam (M.P.)

1088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate,

Mumbai-400020.

3. The Works Inspector(I),

Western Railway,

PO: Dahod (Gujarat).

….First Parties

The President,

General Workmen’s Union,

Sinduri Matta Devasthan,

S.T. Nagar Road,

P.O. Godhara (Gujarat)-389001.

….Second Party

Advocate for the First Party :

Shri H. R. Raval

Representative for the Second Party :

Shri J. K. Ved

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41011/46/2013-IR(B-I) dated 15.07.2013 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 the President, General Workmen’s Union, Godhara against

the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, W.R., Ratlam & others to reinstate in service of

Shri Nura Ditya, Casual Labour is legal, fair and justified? If so, then to what relief the

above workmen are entitled to.”

1. Today matter is called out. Shri H. R. Raval, Ld. Advocate is Present for the First Party No.1 Western

Railway, Ratlam. None responds for remaining FP’s. Shri J. K. Ved, President, General Workmen’s Union,

representing the second party workman filed withdrawal pursis vide Exhibit-7 and prayed for withdrawal of

the reference. Withdrawal is not opposed by First Party. The Second party workman is permitted to withdraw

the reference as prayed for.

2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 564.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंजडया (फोरमेरली स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ सौराष्ट्र) ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds

iapkV (186/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y- 12011/36/2018 -vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 186/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India(formerly State Bank of Saurashtra) and their workmen.

[No. L- 12011/36/2018 – IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1089

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated : 10.01.2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 186/2018

1. The General Officer,

State Bank of India, 2^nd Floor,

Nilambaug Chowk,

BHAVNAGAR-364001.

2. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India(formerly State Bank of Saurashtra),

Opp. Patel Building, At Sihor,

Disst. BHAVNAGAR-364001.

….First Parties

Shri Virendrasinh A. Gohil,

C/o. Shramik Sangh, 118/119,

Kaveri Corporation, Navapara,

BHAVNAGAR-364001.

…. Second Party

Adv. for the First Party employer : None

Adv. for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-12011/36/2018-IR(B-I) dated 13.12.2018 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the workman, Shri Virendrasinh A. Gohil Ex-Peon cum chowkidar

against the management, General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhavnagar to his reinstatement

in the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar with continuity of service and with full backwages & other

consequential benefits is fair and justified? If yes, then what relief Shri Virendrasinh A. Gohil,

workman is entitled to & what other direction are necessary in the matter”

1. Today, the matter was called out. None responded for either of the parties. The reference dates back to

13.12.2018. Notice Exh. 2 was issued to the parties, wherein the parties were asked to submit their pleadings. A

period of over four years has elapsed, yet no statement of claim has been filed as directed by the Ministry. It appears

that the Second Party workman is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The reference is accordingly disposed of in absence of statement of claim and evidence, with the observation

that “the demand of the workman, Shri Virendrasinh A. Gohil Ex-Peon cum chowkidar against the management,

General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhavnagar to his reinstatement in the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar with

continuity of service and with full backwages & other consequential benefits is not fair and justified. The concerned

workmen are not entitled for any relief.”

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s

17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

1090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 565.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 19/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/135/2013-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/04/2023

[No. L-22012/135/2013 – IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 19 OF 2013

PARTIES: Ramswarup Paswan

Vs.

Management of New Ghusick Colliery, Sripur Area of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated: 20.02.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.

L-22012/135/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of New Ghusick Colliery, Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management not to regularise the service of

Sri Ramswarup Paswan as Attendance Clerk, while the management taking the work as

Attendance Clerk, as admitted by the management in written statement is just and fair?

If not, so what relief management can provide to Sri Ramswarup Paswan? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/135/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2013 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 19 of 2013 was registered on 14.02.2014

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1091

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Management of New Ghusick Colliery of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. The case was fixed up on 13.02.2023 for evidence of workman witness, Ramswarup Paswan as

special chance. On repeated calls, Mr. Ramswarup Paswan, the aggrieved workman and Mr. S. K. Pandey, the union

representative were not found available. Fresh Notice was issued to the workman though registered post on

29.09.2022 but the same was returned with a report that he has left the address.

3. This Industrial Dispute was referred to this Tribunal for adjudicating the question as to whether the action of

the management not to regularise the service of Sri Ramswarup Paswan as Attendance Clerk, while the management

taking the work as Attendance Clerk, as admitted by the management in written statement is just and fair? If not, to

what relief management can provide to Sri Ramswarup Paswan?

4. Sufficient opportunities were provided to the workman and union representative but they did not appear on

consecutive dates. Under such circumstance it appears that the workman is not interested in proceeding with the case.

The Industrial Dispute is accordingly disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 566—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

01/2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22013/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/04/2023

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present : Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol

L. C. Application No. 01 OF 2008

PARTIES : Kapildeo Jha

v/s

Management of Bhanora West Block Colliery of M/s. ECL

1092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the union (Workman): Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress

For the Management of M/s. ECL: Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate

INDUSTRY:

Coal

STATE :

WEST BENGAL

Dated :

30.01.2023

AWARD

Instant application is filed by Kapildeo Jha under section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying for

payment of difference of wages from 14/04/1998 till date of filing of application.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar representing Kapildeo Jha is present. Case is fixed up today for production of documents

and final disposal. Mr. Apurba Biswas, Manager (Personnel), Bhanora-Gir Group of Mines has produced a

calculation sheet detailing difference of wages payable from April 1998 to March 2000. Mr. A. Biswas is examined as

MW-I. Document filed is marked as Exhibit M-I. Witness is cross-examined and discharged. Evidence is closed.

Heard argument advanced by Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL and Mr. Rakesh Kumar. It appears that

Kapildeo Jha who was converted from General Mazdoor to Pit Clerk filed an application u/s 33(C)(2) of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 claiming that the Management has not paid difference of wages he is supposed to receive from the

company for the period from 14/04/1998 till date of filing of application. The petitioner has further stated that he is

entitled to get Rupees Three Lakh (Rs. 3,00,000/-) approximately as difference of wages.

Written statement has been filed by the Management of ECL denying the claim of the workman. It is contended

that no legal right accrued in favour of the workman due to want of appropriate order by the competent authority. The

workman has been examined as WW-I. He was recross-examined on recall on 21/11/2022. In recross-examination the

witness has stated that he served as Pit Clerk from 1997 to 2016. Since 2016 the post of Pit Clerk was abolished and

he was posted as Magazine Clerk. I find that this contention has been made for the first time in evidence as there is no

averment by the petitioner in the written statement that he served as Pit Clerk till 2016.

In course of time, Mr .A. Biswas (MW-I) has been examined as the Management Witness and he produced a

calculation sheet showing the difference of wages from April 1998 to March 2000 amounting to Rs. 23,892.12/-.

Document in two pages have been marked as Exhibit M-I. On perusal of the document, I find the workman has

accepted the calculation up to March 2000.

6. In cases filed u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the workman is entitled to make claims of

ascertained sum payable to him but in the present application the workman has made vague claim and such

application is not maintainable in the eye of law. Furthermore, the application has not been made within one year

from the date on which the money became due to the workman.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the ECL Management argued that the present application is a regular

Industrial Dispute and it has been filed in guise of an L. C. Application.

I have no hesitation that the workman and the Management have agreed upon the calculations made in favour of

Mr. Kapildeo Jha from April 1998 to March 2000. The L. C. Application filed is disposed of in terms of the

settlement arrived at. The prayer of the petitioner workman is allowed in part. Let an Award be drawn up in favour of

the workman directing the Management of Bhanora West Block Colliery to pay the difference of wages amounting to

Rs. 23,892.12/- in favour of the workman within one month from the date of Notification.

Hence,

ORDER

The application filed by the workman u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is allowed in part in

favour of the workman. Let the calculation sheet dated 28/01/2023 (Exhibit M-I) be treated as a part of Award. Let

copies of Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour u/s 33(C)(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for information.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1093

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 567.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj पंिाब एंड ससंि बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (99/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y- 12011/31/2021-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 99/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab and Sindh Bank

and their workmen.

[No. L- 12011/31/2021 – IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 99/2021

Ref. No. L-12011/31/2021-IR(B-II) dated 04.10.2021

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Punjab & Sindh Bank Staff Association,

11, MG Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow - 226001

AND

1. The Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab and Sindh Bank

Head Office, 5th Floor, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008

2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Zonal Office,

Civil Lines, Bareilly (U.P)-243001

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/31/2021-IR(B-II) dated 04.10.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

" Whether the demand of Punjab & Sindh Bank Staff Association, Lucknow vide representation dated

26.12.2020( copy enclosed) in respect of Shri Sidhant Kumar, PTS is covered under the provision of

the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002? If Yes, whether the action of the management of Punjab &

Sindh Bank, Bareilly vide letter No. ZOBLY/DAC/SIDHANTH/121489 dated 07.10.2020 (copy

enclosed) against Shri Sidhant Kumar, PTS working at Powayan Branch, Shahjahanpur is fair and

legal? If not, what relief Shri Sidhant Kumar, PTS is entitled to?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 99/2021 has been registered on 21.10.2021.

Shri Prateek Tiwari, learned counsel/representative appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as a

matter of fact from the perusal of record, the admitted position which emerges, till date statement of claim has not

been field by claimant in spite of repeated opportunity given to him, the present reference may be dismissed.

1094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Findings & Conclusion:

After hearing the learned counsel and taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been

filed by the claimant in order to establish his claim as per the reference dated 04.10.2021.

And by order dated 03.10.2022, last opportunity was given to the claimant to file statement of claim, the same has not

been filed.

So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v.

Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.

Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative

for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is

challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)

FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led

by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In

such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead

evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,

who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.

A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led

by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable

to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 568.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj पजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (82/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y- 41012/51/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 82/2011) 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- 41012/51/2011 – IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1095

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated : 30.12.2022

Reference: (CGITA) No- 82/2011

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate,

Mumbai.

2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Near Railway Station,

Teen Batti, Ratlam (M.P.)

3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (South),

Western Railway, Station Building,

Dahod (Gujarat).

….First Parties

V/s

Shri Ditta H. Ninama,

C/o. Ramanbhai Baria,

No.29/A, Anup Nagar, Behind Pratapnagar,

Railway Colony, Pratap nagar,

Baroda.

…..Second Party

Advocate for the First Party : Shri N. J. Acharya

Advocate for the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak & Shri Chintan Gohel

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-41012/51/2011-IR(B-I) dated 21.10.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway, Ratlam in imposing the

penalty of removal from service of Shri Ditta H. Ninama, Ex-Trackman, vide their order

dated 12/12/2006, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 21.10.2011.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex.11 on

06.01.2017. Perusal of the record shows that the first party did not submit its written statement despite service of

notice and several opportunities. Hence the case was proceeded exparte against the First Party/ employer vide order

dated 13.08.2018. The second party workman also failed to adduce exparte evidence, despite several opportunities.

2. Today, Shri Chintan Gohel Advocate for the second party is present and submitted an application vide Ex.13

that the second party has not been in his contact and orally stated that tribunal may pass order as it deems fit.

3. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances and in absence of any evidence on behalf of the workman,

the reference is finally disposed of as under :

“the action of the management of Western Railway, Ratlam in imposing the penalty of removal from service of

Shri Ditta H. Ninama, Ex-Trackman, vide their order dated 12/12/2006, is legal and justified”

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

1096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 569.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj dsujk cSad izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k dksydrk ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (51/2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS A

[la- ,y- 12011/42/2015 -vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2023

S.O. 569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.51/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen

[No. L- 12011/42/2015 – IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

REF. No. 51 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Canara Bank

AND

Their Workman.

Present : Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer.

Appearance :

On behalf of Canara Bank : Miss Ashok Ghosh, Advocate & Miss. S. Ghosh, Adv.

On behalf of the Union. : Mr. U.D. Chatterjee, Advocate.

Dated 12 December,, 2022

AWARD

This is a reference case u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act referred by Ministry of Labour, Govt. of

India vide Order No.L-12011/42/2015-IR(B-II) dated 03-08-2015 for determination of the following issue :-

“Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank is justified by transferring Sri Uday

Chandra

Ghosh,

President

the

Union

without

following

guidelines

Posting

&Transfer/Placement for Officers is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?

The Record shows, neither the Union who has espoused the cause of Sri Uday Chandra Ghosh, who appears

to be an Officer of Canara Bank or the said employee Sri Uday Chandra Ghosh has failed to take any interest in

prosecuting with the present proceeding after 10-09-2018 and they have failed to appear before this Tribunal since

10-09-2018.

The documents which have been filed by the Management this day shows the incumbent was an Agricultural

Extension Officer. So, question arises whether an Officer of the bank can claim to be a workman as defined in section

2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?

Be that as it may, it is a matter of common knowledge that Job of every officer of a nationalized bank is

transferrable job and they can be transferred from one branch to any other branch situate in any place of India.

Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the dispute which has been raised by the Union on behalf of Sri Uday

Chandra Ghosh, its President challenging his transfer from the branch where he was posted to another branch which

might not had been a posting of his convenience appears to be a frivolous cause and such cause cannot be termed as

an Industrial Dispute.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1097

Further, the documents that have been filed by the Management this day shows the concerned employee has

already retried from his service on 31-12-2019 on superannuation. Therefore, at this stage the dispute under reference

becomes redundant.

Thus, Reference Case No. 51 of 2015 is dismissed without any cost. Award is passed accordingly.

Send copy of this award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour for doing needful as per law.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 570.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkbZ lh vkbZ vkbZ cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydrk ds iapkV (01/2014) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[la- ,y- 12025/01/2023 -vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-37]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2023

S.O. 570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank and their workmen.

[No. L- 12025/01/2023 – IR(B-I) -37]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

CGIT-01 OF 2014

Shri Pranab Sikdar

Applicant/Employee

Vesrsus

ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anrs

… Opp. Parties

Appearance

On behalf of the Appellant: Mr. A. Banerjee, Adv. & Mrs. A. Chatterjee, Adv.

On behalf of Opp.Party

: Mr.A. Guha & Mrs.S. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.

Date: 12^th December, 2012.

AWARD

The facts as gathered from the materials on record in gist is that the applicant was appointed in the post of

Junior Officer in ICICI Bank, a Non Nationalised Bank by issuing an offer letter dated 25-09-2010. His appointment

was subjected to terms and conditions as mentioned in the said appointment letter at a monthly salary of Rs.15,412/-.

He was allotted Employee Code No.211687.

It has been alleged by the concerned employee that by issuing a letter dated 17-07-2013, he has been

informed that his service was no longer required and directed him not to attend office w.e.f. 18-07-2013. He further

alleged that he was terminated from the service by his employer without any rhyme and reason and without following

1098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the procedural norms for termination of an employee in a private bank. That in order to terminate the service of an

employee there has to be some kind of charges against him. The employee should have been given an opportunity of

being heard against the charge but without adhering to the principle of natural justice he was illegally terminated from

the service after serving the employer for three years. Therefore, he has prayed for his reinstatement with full back

wages and with consequential relief.

The record shows initially the employer ICICI Bank was contesting the caseby filing a Written Statement

along with documents and where it has alleged that the service of the employee is liable to be terminated at any time

during his service tenure, in the event of any breach of rules and regulations of the bank as applicable to the

employee during the course of his employment and for misconduct.

That the concerned employee in the course of his duty had opened an A/c. in the name of one Sri Vikash

Ranjan Verma, without following the mandatory process which are required to be followed for the purpose of opening

an account which includes visiting and verifying the communication address of the prospective customer to ensure

proper identity of such prospective customer and rule out possibility of any future and consequent misuse of such

bank account if opened.

The customer Vikash Ranjan Varma, whose account was opened by the concerned workman had deposited a

cheque No.632949 amounting to Rs.2,75,961/- drawn on State Bank of India and which was credited on July 18,2012.

The said customer withdrew the entire amount through various ATMs. Subsequently, it was informed by the State

Bank of India, the cheque no.632949 deposited by Vikash Ranjan Varma was a fraudulent instrument.

On causing enquiry it was found that Vikash Ranjan Verma was not a resident of the address provided in his

Bank A/c. opening application and he was not contactable on the phone number given in the bank record. On causing

internal enquiry it was detected Vikash Ranjan Verma could commit such fraud with the bank due to irresponsible

and negligent conduct on the part of the concerned employee. Due to such incident the bank had not only suffered

financial loss but also lost its reputation.

During internal inquiry the concerned workman in writing admitted the facts that he never visited the

customer’s communication address which he claimed to have verified along with the original documents submitted by

the customer at the time of opening of the A/c.

Considering such misconduct on the part of the employee the bank terminated his service by issuing a letter

dated 3^rd July,2013 along with a banker’s cheque for Rs.40,100/- equivalent to three months salary in lieu of three

months notice as per employment terms applicable to him. The termination letter with the cheque were handed over to

the employee personally on 17^th July, 2013 in presence of the Cluster Manager and Regional Head Sales of ICCI

Bank, but he refused to accept the same and as such the same were sent to him through Registered Post on 24^th July,

2013,. The cheque was duly encashed by him on September 20, 2013 without any protest. Therefore, the bank has

prayed for dismissal of the application under 2A sub section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1047.

However, at the time of final hearing the management failed to appear and contest the case. Thus present

case has been proceeded as per rule 22 of Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957.

The concerned employee as Witness No.1 has filed documents namely his appointment letter dated 25-09-

2010, the terms and conditions of his service including his pay structure, joining formalities with his pay statement,

copy of letter dated 20-07-2013 written by him to Recruitment Service Group, HRMG, ICICI Bank Ltd., copy of

postal receipt, copy of another letter dated 07-08-2013 addressed to the Manager, ICICI Bank, Calcutta along with

copy of postal receipt, copy of letter dated 14-09-2013 to HRMG Recruitment Service Group, ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Mumbai along with copy of postal receipt, copy of letter addressed to ALC, Govt. of India dated 19-03-2014, copy of

letter to Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner dated 28-08-2013, Xerox copy of his termination letter dated 3^rd July,

2013 and certificate issued by ALOC, Central Calcutta under section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act dated 06-08-

2014 and which have been marked as Exhibit 1,2,3, 4,m 4A, 5, 5A, 6,6A, 7,8,9 and 10 respectively,.

The only question that requires determination in the present case is whether termination of the concerned

Junior Officer and whose monthly salary is more than Rs15,000/- in 2013 is legal and valid?

The appointment letter prima facie proves that the present applicant employee was appointed in the post of

Junior Officer but his appointment letter is totally silent about the nature of job he had to discharge as a Junior Officer

of the employer bank. From the very facts that the concerned employee was assigned with the duty of opening of new

Bank Accounts by the prospective customers it can be inferred that he used to discharge the function as that of a

Clerk, though being a Junior Officer.

Be that as it may, that Exhibit-2 shows that the concerned employee joined the service of the ICICI Bank as a

Junior Officer accepting the terms and conditions as stipulated in Exhibit-2. Exhibit-2 contains ground on which the

service of the concerned employee was subject to termination. It provides that service of the concerned employee was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1099

liable to be terminated at any time even after confirmation in the event of (1) any breach of the conditions mentioned

in the letter of terms and condition and (2) any breach of the rules and regulation of the bank as applicable, but subject

to 90 days notice or on payment of 90 days gross salary in lieu of notice period.

It is true that bank has failed to adduce any evidence in support of its contention made in the Written

Statement, but the document Annexure-C dated 01.09.2012 that was filed by the bank prima facie shows the

concerned employee in writing had admitted that while opening Bank Account of a customer named Vikash Ranjan

Verma, by him he had only verified the documents filed by the said customer named Vikash Ranjan Verma and

processed the account opening form without visiting the communication address of the said customer.

It is the case of the management that due to such irresponsible and negligent conduct on the part of the

employee said Vikash Ranjan Verma could defraud the bank by depositing a cheque obtained fraudulently and

manage to encash the fraudulently obtained cheque of Rs.2,75,961/- drawn on State Bank of India and withdrawing

the entire amount immediately through different ATMs. Later on conducting internal enquiry it was detected that

Vikash Ranjan Verma was not found in the address given in his application form or he was unable to contact on the

phone number provided to the bank.

In view of Annexure C filed by the Bank, it cannot be ruled out that a fraudster could open an account with

the Bank just because of the concerned employee’s negligent or irresponsible conduct and who managed to defraud

the bank by en-cashing a fraudulently obtained cheque of SBI. Had this concerned employee was sincere in

discharging his duty and had properly verified the identity and the address of the said customer then employer bank

would not have suffered a financial loss as well its creditability. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out the indulgence of

this employee’s in the alleged incident.

The Annexure-D filed by the bank further goes to show the concerned employee was given a cheque of

Rs.42,100/- in lieu of three month notice on the day he was handed over termination letter on 03.07.2013 and which

was duly credited in his account on 20-09-2013. Such very facts also shows that employee had accepted his

termination letter and as such he had decided to encash the cheque of Rs.42,100/- which was given to him in lieu of

three months notice as per the terms and conditions of his service and which he had accepted while joining the job.

However, following decisions have been referred on behalf of the concerned workman :-

H.D.Singh –vs – Reserve Bank of India, reported in 1985 LAB, L.C.1733.

Madhya Pradesh Bank Karmachari Sangha –vs- Syndicate Bank & Anrs., reported in 1996 LAB

L.C. 1161.

State Bank of India –vs- N. Sundarmaney, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 933 & 934

of 1975 on 16-01-1976.

D.K. Yadav – vs- M/s. J.M.A.Industries Ltd. passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 166 (NL)

of 1983 on 07-05-1993.

Bank of Baroda –vs- Ghemrabhai Harjibhai Kabari, reported in 2005 (ii) CLR 279.

Deepali Gundu Surwase –vs- Kranti Junion Adhyapak Mahavidyalay & Ors., reported in 2013, LAB

IC. 4249.

From the above cited decisions it appears an employee cannot be terminated without being heard, without

charge being framed against him or any department proceeding drawn against him.

In the present case the Annexure –C as discussed above prima facie shows that there was an internal enquiry

about fraud being committed by a customer named Vikash Ranjan Verma and whose account was opened by the

present employee. It appears that Vikash Ranjan Verma had opened an account with the ICICI Bank, in the branch

where this employee was posted only for the purpose of getting the cheque of S.B.I. which he had fraudulently

obtained encashed and managed to withdraw the entire amount within few days of encashment or clearance through

different ATMs. The concerned employee by signing Annexure –C has admitted his fault of opening of the Account

without physically verifying the address of the customer.

A question may arises, is it necessary for a bank employee to personally verify the address of the customer?

It is a matter of common knowledge that in order to open a bank account the customer has to file address

proof document such as Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card and PAN Cards and without those documents it is not possible

to open an account with the bank. Further, a new customer has to be identified by an existing customer of the bank.

In the present case it appears there was no due compliance of the above formalies for opening of a new Bank

Account by the present employee while he opened an account of a fraudster named Viaksh Ranjan Verma as bank

1100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was unable to trace the said fraudster after the fraud being committed by him in the address provided in his

application.

That apart, when there is written admission of negligence and irresponsibility from the side of the employee,

this Tribunal holds that there is no need to frame charge or cause a disciplinary proceeding against the admitted

negligence or misconduct.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears the

employer bank has terminated the service of the concerned employee after conducting internal enquiry for his

negligent and irresponsible conduct for which the bank’s credibility was put in stake and had also suffered financial

loss.

Annexure-D shows that the concerned employee was paid three months salary in lieu of notice period and

which he had accepted. Thus, this Tribunal holds that there was due compliance of section 25F of the I.D.Act and the

concerned employee being retrenched as per the terms and conditions of his service stipulated in his appointment

letter.

Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any illegality in the termination of the service of the concerned

employee/ the applicant/petitioner by the employer ICCI Bank and do not find any reason to interfere with the

decision taken by the employer. There is no merit in the present case u/s 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and

same is dismissed.

Accordingly, CGIT case no.01/2014 is dismissed, but without any cost.

Award is passed accordingly.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 571.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj बैंक ऑफ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iqus ds iapkV (15/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y- 12012/32/2012 -vkbZ vkj (ch- II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2023

S.O. 571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.15/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Pune as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L- 12012/32/2012 – IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

REFERENCE (IT) NO. 15 OF 2012

The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Kolhapur Zone,

Kolhapur – 416002.

…. First Party

Versus

Manikrao Basappa. Kamble,

Kupwad, Tah. Miraj,

Dist. Sangli – 416425.

….Second Party

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1101

CORAM

SHRI. K.N. GAUTAM, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,

PUNE.

APPEARANCES

•Shri. P.P. Parab, Learned Advocate for the First Party.

•Shri. R.P. Shaligram, Learned Advocate for the Second Party.

AWARD

(Dated : 22^nd February, 2023)

This is a reference made by Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi by its order dated

23.11.2022 for deciding the legality and justification of imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from

service with superannuation benefits on Shri. Manikrao Bassappa Kamble with effect from 09.11.2019.

Facts of the case of Second Party :

2. It is the case of the Second Party that it was working with First Party since 02.02.1983. The First Party is a

nationalized bank engaged in the business of banking. The Second Party was illegally terminated from service on

09.11.2019 by imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service. At the time of termination, the Second

Party was working as Head Cashier-II at Atpadi Branch.

The Second Party contended that First Party issued charge-sheet dated 19.09.2009 to Second Party, to which

the Second Party submitted its reply dated 13.03.2009. Mr. A.R. Kadam, the Chief Manager of First Party was

appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Second Party has participated in inquiry with his representative Mr. A.B. Vartak.

The First Party examined four witnesses and the Second Party examined two witnesses. Thereafter, Second Party

submitted defence statement. The inquiry was concluded on 05.05.2009. The said inquiry was not legal, fair and

proper and not held as per the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Inquiry Officer was provided to the

Second Party vide letter dated 26.06.2009. The findings were totally erroneous. The Inquiry Officer had not

considered the evidence of the Second Party and gave its findings to please the management of the First Party. The

Second Party accordingly gave letter dated 06.07.2009 to the First Party. However, without considering the same the

First Party issued show cause notice dated 21.10.2009 to which the Second Party submitted his reply dated

03.11.2009. The Second Party without considering the same issued punishment order dated 09.11.2009 imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The Second Party contended that the charge-sheet issued was

false and illegal, and the punishment issued on the basis of findings of Inquiry Officer are disproportionate. The

Second Party is unemployed since the date of termination. It is prayed that Second Party be reinstated in service with

continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till actual date of reinstatement.

Facts of the case of the First Party :

The First Party filed its written statement at Exh.C-6 and denied all the contentions of the Second Party. It

contended that the First Party while working as Head Cashier-II in branch of Atpadi made payment against bearer

cheque no. 7880 of CC A/c No. 70 maintained in the name of M/s. Maharaja Krishi Bhandar of Rs. 50,000/- on

20.02.2008. The record shows that the actual payment made to the customer was Rs. 50,000/-. However, the Second

Party inserted amount of Rs. 70,000/- in the system thereby debited an extra amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the account

of customer. The Second Party did not report any excess cash on that day. Mr. A.V. Mane, Proprietor of M/s.

Maharaja Krishi Bhandar visited the bank and inquired about its transaction on 25.02.2008 and at that time, the First

Party came to know about the aforesaid facts. After verifying the cheque wrongly posted as Rs. 70,000/- instead of

Rs. 50,000/- and after verifying all the cash receipts/payment vouchers of 20.02.2008, the Second Party admitted his

mistake and agreed to make good the loss from his own pocket. But, by keeping the customer waiting for 41 days the

Second Party ultimately returned the amount on 08.04.2008. Thus, it is clear that the Second Party has got excess

cash of Rs. 20,000/- on 20.02.2008 itself, but he has deliberately not brought it to the notice of the branch officials

and misappropriated the amount.

The First Party contended that Mr. M.R. Gosavi, Senior Manager done investigation in said matter and

submitted his report dated 11.04.2008. In his report, he has categorically mentioned that the Second Party got excess

cash on 20.02.2008 itself and intentionally kept the same with himself and returned the same when the matter came to

light. He proposed departmental inquiry against the Second Party. Accordingly, the Vigilance Department of the First

Party gave instruction to initiate disciplinary action against Second Party. Then, the charge-sheet dated 19.02.2009

was served to the Second Party on 26.02.2009. Mr. A.R. Kadam, Chief Manager of Karad branch was appointed as

Inquiry Officer. The preliminary hearing was held on 13.03.2009 and regular hearings were held on 25.03.2009 and

05.05.2009. After completion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 24.06.2009 and he

observed that the charges levelled against the Second Party are proved. On the basis of findings of Inquiry officer, the

Vigilance Department vide letter dated 22.08.2009 directed that the punishment of compulsory retirement with

1102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

superannuation benefits be imposed on the Second Party. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 21.10.2009 was

issued to the Second Party and he was offered personal hearing on 03.11.2009 to show cause as to why the proposed

punishment should not be imposed on it. The disciplinary authority after hearing Second Party and after considering

all points, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service with superannuation benefits vide order dated

09.11.2009. The Second Party preferred appeal against said order which was dismissed by Zonal Manager vide order

dated 04.03.2010 and confirmed the order of punishment imposed on Second Party.

The First Party contended that during departmental inquiry the Second Party was provided an opportunity of

adducing evidence and the said inquiry was held as per the guidelines laid down in bipartite settlement dated

10.04.2002. The Inquiry Officer followed all the laid down procedure prescribed under disciplinary action for gross

misconduct as stated in Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on disciplinary action and procedure. The

Inquiry Officer also followed the principles of natural justice and on the basis of documentary evidence came to the

conclusion that charge of misappropriation of excess cash of Rs. 20,000/- was proved. The punishment of Second

Party has been decided based on documentary as well as oral evidence. Lastly, it is prayed that the statement of

claim may be rejected.

In view of rival pleadings of both the parties, my learned predecessor framed issues vide Exh. O-7. The said

issues are reproduced here-in-below with my findings thereon for reasons to follow :-

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1. Whether the inquiry conducted

Already decided

against the Second Party was legal,

vide order dated

fair and proper?

17.12.2022.

2. Whether the findings of the

Already decided

Inquiry Officer were based on

vide order dated

evidence?

17.12.2022.

3. Whether the punishment imposed

upon the Second Party was shockingly

disproportionate ?

….Yes.

4. Whether the First Party was justified

in imposing punishment of compulsory

retirement from service with superannuation

benefits on Second Party ?

….No.

5. Whether the Second Party is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service

and full back wages ?

….Yes.

What order?

….As per final order.

REASONS

In the instant case, after filing of reference, both the parties appeared. The statement of claim was filed by

the Second Party on 16.6.2015 and the First Party filed written statement on 3.9.2018. The issues were framed on

2.11.2018 at Exh. O-7. My learned predecessor vide order dated 21.02.2022 below Exh. C-9 recasted the issues and

held that the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed below Exh. O-7 will be tried as preliminary issue. In the meanwhile, the

Second Party filed affidavit of examination in chief on 10.10.2017 and as the First Party failed to cross examine the

Second Party, hence the matter proceeded without cross examination of the First Party. However, vide order dated

26.04.2019, the no cross order was set aside and the First Party was cross examined by the Second Party on

26.04.2019. Thereafter, the witness of the First Party was examined on 26.04.2019 and cross examined on

27.02.2020. Thereafter, the First Party remained absent continuously. Hence, notice was issued to the First Party,

which was received by it as per postal acknowledgment at Exh. O-11. However, it remained absent. Thereafter,

preliminary issues were decided vide order dated 17.12.2022 and it is held that the departmental inquiry conducted

against the Second Party was not legal, fair and proper and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and not

based on the evidence brought before him. By said order, the First Party was given opportunity to lead evidence if any

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1103

to prove the misconduct of the Second Party. However, no evidence lead by the First Party in this regard. Hence, the

evidence of the First party was closed and the matter was put up for evidence of the Second Party vide order dated

04.01.2023 below Exh. O-1. Thereafter, the Second Party lead evidence by filing his affidavit of examination-in-chief

on 09.02.2023. However, the First Party failed to cross examine the Second Party even after grant of reasonable

chances, hence the matter was fixed for argument on 21.02.2023.

As to Issue Nos. 3 to 5 :

In view of the order dated 17.12.2022, now it is duly proved that the inquiry conducted against the Second

Party is not legal, fair and proper. It is also decided that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not based on the

evidence brought before him. There is nothing on record to show that said order is challenged by the First Party.

Hence, the order dated 17.12.2022 attained finality and the findings given below preliminary issue became final.

10.

The First Party failed to lead any evidence in Court to prove the misconduct of the Second Party even after

grant of reasonable chances. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the misconduct of the Second

Party. On the other hand, the Second Party i.e. Manikrao Kamble deposed in his evidence at Exh. U-29 that

management of the First Party issued show cause notice dated 21.10.2009 for imposing punishment of compulsory

retirement, which was replied by him by reply dated 03.11.2009. He deposed that without considering his reply, the

First Party issued him the punishment order dated 09.11.2009. He specifically deposed that the punishment issued to

him is disproportionate and liable to be set aside.

11.

It is already proved and decided that the departmental inquiry held against the delinquent i.e. Second Party

was not fair, legal and proper and the findings of the Inquiry officer are perverse and not based on evidence brought

before him. So, obviously, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on Second Party based on

such departmental inquiry which is not fair, proper and legal and when the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not

based on evidence brought before him, is shockingly disproportionate. As already discussed that no evidence lead by

the First Party in Court to prove the misconduct of Second Party. So, certainly, the misconduct of the Second Party is

not proved though alleged. Therefore, in such circumstances, when misconduct is not proved then question of

imposing any punishment for misconduct did not arise. Therefore, the First Party is not justified in imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement from service with superannuation benefits on Second party for the alleged

misconduct which is not proved to be committed by the Second party. Hence, in such circumstances, the Second party

is certainly entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages as prayed by him. I therefore,

answered Issue Nos. 3 and 5 in the affirmative and the issue No.4 in the negative.

12.

In the result, I pass following order :-

ORDER

•

The reference is answered in the affirmative.

•

The First Party is hereby directed to reinstate the Second Party in service with continuity in service and full back

wages from the date of its termination till actual date of reinstatement.

•

No order as to the costs.

•

The copy of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.

K. N. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 572.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2 /kuckkn ds iapkV (106/2004) izdkf”kr djrh

gSA

[l-a ,y- 12012/103/2004 -vkbZ vkj (ch- I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

1104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th April, 2023

S.O. 572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.106/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L- 12012/103/2004 – IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT

Dr.S.K.Thakur,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 106 OF 2004.

PARTIES:

Sh.Ram Chandra Mallick Dom,

Jagir Tola Chandni Chowk,

Village & PO: Bihat,Brauni,

Distt: Begusarai,Bihar,

Begusarai,

Vs.

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

LHO, Patna Bihar.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Bihat Chandani Chowk,

Begusarai, Bihar

Order No. L-12012/103/2004-IR(B-I) dt. 20.08.2004.

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr.S.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand Industry

:Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26^th December, 2022

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-12012/103/2004-IR (B-I) dt. 20.08.2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of

workman Sh. Ram Chandra Mallick Dom instead of regularizing him on completing 240 days of

continuous service in each calendar year for more than 8 years in the Bihat Chandi Chowk Branch of

State Bank of India, Begusarai Bihar is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1105

1. On receipt of the Order No. L-12012/103/2004-IR (B-I) dt. 20.08.2004 of the reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered

as Reference case No. 106 of 2004 on 15.09.2004 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices

through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed

and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the

Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.

2, The brief facts as narrated by the workman in the Written statement of claim as details below:

i) That the petitioner comes within the category of oppressed class called as Scheduled Caste having

privileges enshrined in the constitution of India under which the Indian system and democracy works and

the petitioner stands byte provisions contained in his favour and the OP being so much of strength cannot

take away them under the system of Rule of law.

ii) But it is admitted case of the O.P. vide para-4 of the reply submitted to the A.L.C., Patna on 20.01.2004

tagged as Annexure-I herewith as to this written statement that the petitioner worked for cleaning the

Branch premises of Bihat Chandi Chowk Branch from 1985 to 1994 i.e. eight years. But it is not correct

statement of the O.P. that he was working as a Casual Labour. In fact he worked continuously for all

those period without break and to deprive the benefit accruing to the poor workman petitioner of the

benefit accruing out of the continuous working of two forty days. Such unreliable, arbitrary and wrong

statement has been made by the O.P. The petitioner being not in such a position to know all about the

realities of the matter could not get the matter in the proper dimension and kept on working for such a

long period with the great hope and as assured by the O.P. that he will be regularized in the job.

iii) That the contention of the petitioner gets fortified from this fact that a new person namely Jai Narayan

Paswan was appointed and made to join in 1995 and this poor petitioner had worked till 26.1.1995.This

contribution as workman was well entertained and appreciated by the O.P. on auspicious day of

26.01.1995.But it was never expected by this poor petitioner that as soon as the flag hoisting ceremony

on 26th January,1995 will be over he will be asked by the Management that his service to the bank is

terminated and in his place a new person will be taken in the service without any fault or anything against

him and even without show cause notice. But it was never expected by this poor petitioner that as soon as

the flag foisting ceremony on 26^th January, 1995 will be over he will be asked by the Management that his

service tote an is terminated and in his place a new person will be taken in the service without any fault or

anything against him and even without show cause notice. This is a glaring example of arbitrariness and

giving good bye to the provisions of Indian Constitution and Service Rules with this all hope of the

petitioner shattered beneath the stroke of affluent management of O.P. The petitioner’s contribution as

workman for such a long period which kept him confined with hope to get his service regularized any

moment as has been assured by Management O.P.it is noteworthy and a matter natural justice that when

the post was sanctioned the first priority and option should have been given to the petitioner but to the

contrary his service was terminated. In other words it is submitted that it is wrong statement of the

O.P./Bank that there was not sanctioned post or vacancy for the post of Sweeper on which the petitioner

was working as the vacancy and post was kept vacant and one Jai Narayan Paswan was employed after

terminating the service of the petitioner against the service rule. The poor petitioner was subjected to a

harsh punishment by O.P. against all the norms.

iv) But the statement and plea taken by the O.P. Bank that the petitioner’s claim is not maintainable for

being a “stale’ claim in view of the same being the ten years old and wrongly took shelter of apex Court

judgment referred as “Neduqunddi Bank Ltd. Case” .The ruling and the principle propounded by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment is not applicable in this case. In fact, in the facts and

circumstances of the case the petitioner ever within his limited circumstances has been knocking the door

of authorities including the statutory authority of National Human Right Commission as regards injustice

with the demand of getting justice within his limited resource. The letter issued by National Human Right

Commission dt.21.06.2000 which is annexed as Annexure –II to this written statement clearly breaks the

very roots of the plea of the O.P. of “Stale Claim” It will not be out of place to mention here that

Government of India ,Ministry of Labour vide letter dt.20.08.2004 took the issue of petitioner’s

termination as Industrial dispute between the Management of SBI and workman Ram Chandra Mallick

Dom (Sweeper) over denial of regularization and illegal termination of service. The said letter is annexed

herewith as Annexure –III. The matter was taken up by the Assist. Labour commissioner in conciliation

and after the failure of conciliation only the matter has been referred to this Hon’ble Court for proper

justice. The Annexure –IV the failure of conciliation report dt. 16.03.2004 and a letter of Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Patna dt.25.09.2003 Annexure –V will further support the contention of the petitioner and

hollowness of the O.P. besides the other available documents will also support the petition.

1106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is not the correct statement of the O.P. that he did not take step. In fact the petitioner has been

attempting all through the period after termination of his service from door to door and in fact assurances

a have been given by the various authorities that his case will be considered in the correct prospective.

Hoping and believing them the petitioner reasonably kept on waiting for some time and having no way

out started taking steps against his injustice as a result of which the present proceeding is before this

learned Court as his and his entire family members hope have been shattered by the O.P. and still the

petitioner has hope in getting justice.

The petitioner is ready to substantiate his case both with the help of documentary and oral evidence in the

court to the best satisfaction of the court and this will prove that the plea of OP Bank falls to the ground.

v) That admittedly the bank in the inception on 02.10.1975 and hence forth both number of staffs and the

area of premises of the Bank kept on highly increasing that is from about 400 Square feet to 3600 Square

feet so far area is concerned.

vi) That it will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner bases his case only on the provision on

Constitution of India in fact with respect to article 14 & 19 upon which the O.P. Bank too relies upon as

per O.P., Statement made in the petition of objection dt.20.01.2004 at para 5, besides the petitioner take

shelter of other provisions of the Constitution of India including that of directive principles of state policy

of which the OP. is subject to as well. The said petition dt.20.01.2004 is Annexure-VI to this W.S. and on

application submitted to Asstt. Labour Commissioner Patna is annexed here with as Annexure VI.

vii) That the OP Bank has acted most malafidely arbitrarily, illegally and against the natural justice as well in

the matter of this petitioner and unnecessary a dispute has been raised under Industrial Dispute Act.

viii) That the petitioner has bonafide claim to get his employment in the O.P.’s Bank and the Court be pleased

to pass an appropriate order in favour of the petitioner directing the O.P. Bank to regularize the

petitioner’s service in the Bank with all compensation and the amount with effect from the date of

termination of the petitioner.

3 Per contra, the OP/Management came forward to defend the case by filing counter claim on the written

statement for claim so filed by the workman with such narrative :-

That the aforesaid reference is not legally maintainable, vague and bad in the eye of law.

II)

That the dispute is an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute, and hence outside the purview of

I.D.Act.1947.

III) That the person concerned cannot raise dispute under Sec.2-A of the I.D. Act.1947, as the said provision

is available to an individual workman only and not to an outsider like the persons concerned.

IV) That the instant dispute has been raised after ten years ,and hence the same has become hopelessly stale

by lapse of time, and this suffers from latches of delay.

That without any prejudice to the submissions made in the foregoing paragrahs, but strongly relying on

the same, it is submitted that the person concerned was never an employee of State Bank of India at any

time, and hence he is not workman as defined under Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

VI) That no employer employee relationship exists between the employers and the person concerned.

VII) That the persons concerned was neither appointed by State Bank of India in any capacity, nor paid any

wages by State Bank of India which derives strength from the fact, that the designation under which the

person concerned alleged to have worked has not been mentioned in the terms of reference. ‘

VIII) That it is relevant to mention here that in case of vacancies, the same has to be filed up after observing

he procedures of recruitment as prescribed under the Rules/Regulation of State Bank of India, and nobody

is empowered to engage or deploy any person directly at his sweet will.

IX) That the Branch of the Bank at Bihat Chandi Chowk was earlier a pay office only having 400 sq. ft. of

space having three staff, and the said pay office was upgraded to status of a Branch on 2.12.81 with staff

strength of which increased to 8 in 1994 .There was no sanctioned vacancy of sweeper. In order to keep

the small space clear the person concerned as engaged sometimes on daily basis from 1986 to 1994 only

to perform part time job which was highly casual in nature and used to be paid some amount which was

agreed upon by the person concerned. Sometimes the person concerned used to been engaged in some

extra work which occurred temporarily which is not incidental to or connected to Banking operation on

contract basis temporarily, for which he used to be paid the contractual amount as agreed upon by both

the parties.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1107

That the aforesaid engagement does not entitle him to be treated as regular employee and workman of the

Bank and does not confer on the person concerned any right to claim regularization of the Bank.

XI) That in the light of above submissions the person concerned was never terminated by the Bank and cannot

claim regularization in service.

In rejoinder both the litigant parties under Reference refuted claims of each other with reiteration to stand by the

statement /claim taken by them as just fair and proper.

4. On scrutiny of record further reveals that the Union /Petitioner appeared through Ld. Advocate Mr.

M.K.Pathak filed list of the documents with copies thereof in order to substantiate workman’s contention before

the Court on the matter .

Xerox copies of Certificate of service rendered by the workman to be issued by the Manager, Bihat

Chandani Chowrk Branch in five pages but not exhibited

ii) Petition or recalling the original certificate dt. 09.09.2005 of service issued by the Management of Bihat,

Chandi Chowrk Branch, Begusarai but not exhibited.

5. Though hearing of the case matter was resumed again on 03.02.2021 and copy of served upon in presence of the

Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman made pleading for more time to file rejoinder /supplementary

reply. On 03.08.2021 Ld. Advocate of the workman took plea to plead the Written Statement of claim filed by the

workman to be treated as Written Argument on behalf of the workman and not confronted over the issue of the

Management’s contention and stand. Workman argument is restricted to written Statement of workman only talks

about constitutional right and application to Human Rights Commission on being oppressed class person than the

claim under the Industrial Dispute.

6. The written statement of the workman exclusively deals with constitutional right to be absorbed regularly

unilaterally onsides and application to the human Rights Commission being the claim an from the category of

oppressed class had nothing to do with the present fact of the case and under the domain of the Industrial Dispute

Act to be granted any relief. The workman concerned did not show any engagement letter of the State Bank of India

in course of hearing nor did disclose the post or designation under which the he used to work which derives strength

itself from the fact of hollowness of the factum. The period disclosing the how many years the petitioner was in

service worked with the Bank Management against any sanctioned posts is not available .Simultaneously whether

the workman is having qualification in terms of statutory recruitment rules for the post. Accordingly, the Tribunal

finds no impediment in holding that the petitioner has tried to establish by cogent and consistence evidence of his

engagement as Sweeper under the OP/Bank but could not clarify that his service was utilized against any sanctioned

post he had worked for how many years.

7. The OP/Management on its behalf stated that it is materially important and relevant factual submission made by

the O.P./Management in counter written statement. The same is reproduced below for ready reference and record:

a) “ That the Branch of the Bank at Bihat Chandani Chowk was earlier a Pay Office only having 400 Sq.

ft. of space having 3 staff ,and the said office was upgraded to status of a Branch on 02.12.1981 with staff

strength of which was increased to eight in 1994 . Sometimes on daily basis from 1986 to 1994 only to

perform part time job which was highly casual in nature?”

b) There was no sanctioned vacancy of sweeper in order to keep small space clear the person concerned was

engaged only to perform part time job which was highly casual in nature and used to be paid some amount

which was agreed upon by the person concerned. Sometimes the person concerned used to be engaged in

some extra work which occurred temporarily which is not incidental or connected to Banking operation on

contract basis temporarily, for which he used to be paid the contractual amount as agreed upon by both

the parties.

c) In the case of Uma Devi the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the people who are appointed on

temporary and casual basis without following proper procedure cannot claim absorption regularization

since the same is opposed to the policy of Public employment. But this is not a case of claiming automatic

regularization or absorption. The Claimant of this proceeding just ventilated his grievance since he was

deprived of fair deal by the OP/Management due to unfair labour practice. It is also an admitted state of

fact that no appointment letter was ever issued by the OP/Management to the claimant.”

8. Advancing the argument over the contention of the case as the subject matter the O.P./Management cited and

placed on record a series of the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgments which are as follows:

Himanshu Kumar Vdidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar 1997 LAB IC 2075 (AIR 1997 SC 3657)

1108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ii) Director, Institute of Management Development ,U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava (AIR 1992 SC 2070)

iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty,(2011) (3) SCC 436

iv) M.P. State Coop Bank Ltd. Vs. Nanuram Yadav as under (2007)1 SCC 408

v) State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006)(4) SCC 1

vi) The Hindustan Aeronautics Ld. Vs. Dan Bhadur Singh reted in 2007 (6) SCC 207

9. Through the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court Judgment in the L.P.A. No. 268 of 2012 the

O.P./management has cited very important pleading .The relevant extract of this judgment is reproduced

below for ready reference

“Be that as it may, even assuming without admitting that this appellant has worked more than 240

days in couple of years ,then also, his services cannot be regularized 240 days working is not a magic wand

which converts illegal appointment into the legal appointment. In fact 240 days working has nothing to do with

the regularization at all 240 days has got reference under Sec.25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 for

calculation of continuous years of service and nothing beyond that. Unnecessarily several time the Labour

Court or the Industrial Courts are committing an error that if any worker has completed 240 days their

services should be regularized .In fact there is no casual connection at all between the working of 240 days and

right of regularization. Illegality in the appointment cannot be diluted by the working of 240 days. Illegality in

the appointment continues, even if worker has worked for 240 days.”

The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has been further pleased to hold as following through the same

judgment

“Whenever any employment is given unathorizedly, in the Respondent UCO Bank ,Hirapur, Dhanbad ,such

type of employment cannot be converted into a regular employment unless there are rules for regularization or scheme

for regularization .In the facts of the present case, there are no rules of regularization nor there is any scheme of

regularization floated by the UCO Bank. In absence of such type of law, the charity shown by the Court will be

cruelty to others. If such type regularization is allowed by the Courts. It will provide encouragement to those who are

adorning high ranking administrative position to give illegal appointment and later on to get them regularized by the

orders of the Courts. A thing which cannot be done directly can never be done indirectly. If no employment can be

given without there being any advertisement and without there being any recruitment process, the Court cannot be

party to illegal regularization of such employee.”

In view of such fact and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court it is

settled that the workman is not entitled for regularization.”

10.

As a matter of fact the workman on his behalf did not counter the contention of the Management based on

the argument and citation of the judgment whereas the workman was served on 03.02.2021 copy of the argument in

the presence of the Ld. Advocate representing the workman during the hearing on 03.02.2021 .Contrary to it the

workman prayed for time to file rejoinder/supplementary reply rather in subsequent hearing fixed on 03.08.2021. No

direct confrontation on the contention of the Management coupled with Apex Court several judgments undeniably

had visibly weaken the claimant’s demand and the workman does not qualify for grant of relief. But there is no

materials on record the elaborate procedure of identification of sanctioned post and detailed advertisement inviting

application from temporary employees/case applications from temporary employees/casual workers are some the

claimant avail that opportunity or not. The period how many years the petitioner was in service worked with the

Bank Management against any sanctioned posts or not .Or whether the workman is having qualification in terms of

statutory recruitment rules for the post. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds no impediment in holding that the petitioner

has established by cogent and consistence evidence of his engagement as Sweeper under the OP/Bank but could not

clarify that his service was utilized against any sanctioned post or for how many years.

11.

Through the materials on record as evident from the claim of workman’s rendering service to the OP/Bank

since 1986 to 1994 is irrefutable fact over which both the parties is of unambiguously agreeable .To support the

stand they have also filed documents showing he has worked in the year 1986 for 300 days, in the year 1987 for

300 and in1988 for 300 days and from 1989 to 1994 1806 days in the capacity of Sweeper under the Caption of

Certificate of Temporary Service on Daily Wage Basis with Seal and Signature of Branch Manager.The

Tribunal finds no impediment in holding that the petitioner has tried to establish by cogent and consistence evidence

of his engagement as Sweeper under the OP/Bank. But the same does not confer on workman right to claim for

regularization in Bank. The workman have every reason to show that Bank took service of the workman in

exigency but termination does not seem to have made in accordance with the provisions under Sec. 25-F the

Industrial Dispute Act. The workman claimed to have rendered service 300 days in 1986,300 in 1987 ,300 days in

1988 and 1806 days from 1989 to 1994 which was issued by the Branch concerned under its signature with seal of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1109

the Bank. So, it is established that workmen have completed more than 240 days in 1986, 1987 and 1988

consecutively. Thus, the undisputed and uncontroverted documentary evidence adduced by the claimant led to a

conclusion that the workman was working with the OP/Management for the period as adduced

12. Thus on considering the whole materials of fact and no confrontation by the workman side on the

key issue on merits as adduced by the Management and in the background of citation of a series of the Apex Court

Judgments and Hob’ble High Court ,Ranchi judgment over the matter, the Tribunal holds the opinion that

appointment made without holding a proper selection do not give right for consideration for being regularized in

casual or temporary nature of work in contradiction of provisions where all eligible candidates do not get fair chance

to compete. In the above parameter the workman could not qualify himself to be granted any relief. Such illegality

cannot be cured by taking recourse of regularization. So the workman is not entitled for grant of any relief as sought

for.

Dr. S. K .THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 573.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

135/1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/208/99-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 135/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023

[No. L-22012/208/99 – IR(B-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present : Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol

REFERENCE NO. 135 OF 1999

PARTIES : Dependent of Sh. Jadu Ram

v/s

Management of Bankola Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Learned Advocate

For the union (Workman): Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress

INDUSTRY:

COAL

STATE :

WEST BENGAL

Dated :

12.01.2023

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Central Government through Ministry of Labour vide its order

1110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. L- 22012/208/99/IR(CM-II) dated 31/08/1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employers, i.e. the Management of Bankola Colliery of M/s. ECL and their workman for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Bankola Colliery of M/s. ECL in not providing

employment to the dependent of Sh. Jadu Ram, workman as per clause 9.4.3. of NCWA-IV is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

1. After receipt of order No. L-22012/208/99/IR(CM-II) dated 31/08/1999 of the aforesaid Reference framed by

Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for adjudication, a Reference case No. 135 of 1999 was

registered on 04/10/2001. Notices were issued to parties under registered post directing them to appear and file their

written statements along with relevant documents and respective list of witnesses they would like to rely upon.

Initially, on 31/07/2002 a No Dispute Award was passed as no written statement was submitted by the

parties. On 05/09/2002 at the instance of the workmen’s union a Misc. case 08 of 2002 was started. On 01/03/2005

the application for restoration was allowed and the No Dispute Award was set aside with a cost of Rs. 50/-. The

Reference case was restored to its original number and file. The workmen’s union filed written statement on

03/05/2005 and the Management filed written statement on 08/02/2016 after eleven years. Evidence was adduced by

Jadu Ram who was cross-examined on behalf of the Management on 05/04/2016. Opportunity was given to the

Management to adduce evidence but they declined.

3. Case was taken up for final hearing on 10/01/2023. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the union representative argued that

Jadu Ram was a permanent employee of M/s. ECL. He was declared medically unfit w.e.f. 29/04/1991. The

dependent son, Ramesh Ram applied for employment. The proposal was sent from the colliery level to the Area

office after necessary screening. The Area office after conducting screening and medical examination declared him

fit for duty but no employment was provided to the dependent of the employee in terms with clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-

IV. On several occasions, prayer was made before the Management of M/s. ECL for providing employment but no

heed was paid. It is the case of the petitioner that the dependents have no source of income and are facing starvation

with family for which the dependent son should get an employment. In this case, Jadu Ram has been examined as

WW-I. In the course of cross-examination, the witness denied that his son was not entitled to get employment under

the company as per provisions of NCWA-IV.

4. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL in reply argued that the Date of Birth of Jadu Ram as per ‘B’ Form

medically unfit w.e.f. 21/06/1991 as per letter No. BA/PO/A-II(20)1960 dated 10/13.6.1991 issued by Dy. P.M.

Bankola Area. Learned advocate argued that the normal date of superannuation of Jadu Ram is 01.07.1991 but he was

terminated on 21.06.1991 for being held medically unfit. Therefore, the dispute raised by the dependent of the

workman for employment has no merit and the Management has not acted arbitrarily by not providing employment to

the dependent of Ex-workman under the clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV. In the written statement the Management of ECL

has urged that the Ex-Workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

5. On perusal of records, it appears that Ex-workman Jadu Ram appeared before the Disablement Medical

Board on 29/04/1991 and by office order dated 17/06/1991, the workman was declared medically unfit for duty and

he was stopped from duty w.e.f. 21/06/1991. It would therefore, appear that Jadu Ram was declared medically unfit

and stopped from his duty only ten days before his attaining the age of superannuation. The workman and his

dependents did not suffer any major financial loss for termination of service of the workman just ten days before

superannuation. Though there is a provision in NCWA-IV for providing employment to the dependent of the

workman who is terminated on medical ground or died in harness, the employer certainly has discretion to adjudge

whether the dependent of the employee who is terminated from service on medical ground should get the benefit of

employment.

6. In my considered view, I do not find any arbitrariness on part of the Management in not providing

employment to the dependent of the workman under clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV who has rendered service for entire

tenure of his service career except ten days. The appropriate relief arising out of premature termination of service by

ten days only is monetary compensation. Since, the workman has been terminated from service on medical ground

ten days before superannuation, which according to office records is 01/07/1991, it is deemed appropriate, suitable

and proper to award a compensation of one month’s salary last drawn by the workman to the dependent of the

workman at the relevant time. Reference case is accordingly disposed of.

Hence,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1111

ORDER

The reference case is disposed of in favour of the dependents of the workman in part and Award be drawn up

directing the Management of Bankola Colliery of ECL to pay a compensation amounting to one month’s salary last

drawn by Jadu Ram, the workman to his dependents at the relevant time. The Management of Bankola Colliery, ECL

is justified in not providing employment to the dependent of Jadu Ram as per clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV. Award shall

take effect within one month from the date of Notification. Let copies of this Award in duplicate be sent to the

Ministry for information and necessary action.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 574.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

32/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/5/2002-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023

[No. L- 22012/5/2002 – IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 32 OF 2002

PARTIES: Jangali Noniya

Vs.

Management of Girmint (R) Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

23.03.2023

1112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.

L-22012/5/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 14.08.2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Girmint (R) Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of the Koyala Mazdoor Congress from the Management of Girmint (R)

Colliery of ECL that Sh. Jangali Noniya may be promoted/regularized as Armed Guard w.e.f.

11.8.99 is just, fair and legal? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/5/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 14.08.2002 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 32 of 2002 was registered on 10.09.2002

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative filed a petition praying for closing the case of the workman on the ground

that Jangali Noniya, ex-worker of Bhanora-Girmint (R) Colliery has died on 18.02.2019 and his son is not interested

in proceeding with this matter before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol.

3. The application is moved. Heard union representative for the workman and learned advocate for the

Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Since Jangali Noniya, the workman has expired, the question of his

promotion or regularization as a matter of right does not exist. The Reference case is accordingly disposed of in the

form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 575.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 04/2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22013/01/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023 –IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1113

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

L. C. APPLICATION NO. 04 OF 2007

PARTIES: Rajesh Sharma.

Vs.

Management of Sodepur Central Workshop.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Sen, learned advocate.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

22.03.2023

AWARD

1. Instant application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed by Rajesh Sharma,

ex-employee of Sodepur Central Workshop of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, praying for payment of allowance and

wages during his period of suspension from service from 30.12.2005 to 26.03.2007.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of Sodepur Central Workshop of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited filed Vokalatnama. Rajesh Sharma, the petitioner appeared in person. Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Sen,

learned advocate for the petitioner filed fresh Vokalatnama along with an application stating that the dispute between

the applicant and the opposite party has been settled as such petitioner does not want to proceed further. Copy of the

application has been served upon learned advocate for M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited.

3. The case was fixed up on 22.02.2023 for hearing of argument. Application was made by the petitioner

praying for recovery of dues from 30.12.2005 to 26.03.2007 i.e. during the period of his suspension from service. It

appears from the averment in petition that Rajesh Sharma was in judicial custody during that period in connection

with some criminal procedure due to which he was suspended. At this stage the petitioner does not want to press his

claim in this case.

4. It also appears from a copy of judgment dated 29.04.2014 of Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2006 that Rajesh

Sharma was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted from charges under Sections 498A/306/406 of Indian Penal

Code (IPC). It is submitted that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and is not inclined to proceed further.

Under such facts and circumstances the L. C. Application is bereft of merit and dismissed.

Hence,

ORDERED

that an Award be passed rejecting the prayer for pay and allowance from 30.12.2005 to 26.03.2007. Copies

of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi under section 33-C(4) of

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

1114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 576.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

03/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/154/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023.

[No. L-22012/154/2018– IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 03 OF 2019

PARTIES: Utpal Banerjee and 3 others.

Vs.

Management of Belbaid Colliery of M/s. ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: Mr. H. L. Soni, Asst. General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.03.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-

22012/154/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 31.12.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Belbaid Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its

Belbaid Colliery under Kunustoria Area in not considering promotions in respect of four

workmen namely S/Shri (1) Utpal Banerjee, (2) Ram Krit Singh Yadav, (3) Sanjib Sil and (4)

Amrit Chatterjee is just and legal? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to? ”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1115

On receiving Order No. L-22012/154/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 31.12.2018 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 03 of 2019 was registered on 24.01.2019

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

The case was fixed up on 17.02.2023 for appearance of the workmen and filing of written statement. Mr. P.

K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and filed written

statement. Copy served upon Mr. H. L. Soni, representing Utpal Banerjee, Ram Krit Singh Yadav, Sanjib Sil, and

Amrit Chatterjee.

Mr. Soni submitted that the concerned workmen do not want to proceed with this case any further as Utpal

Banerjee and Ram Krit Singh Yadav have been promoted and two other workmen have superannuated.

No written statement has been filed by the workmen. The Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

filed written statement stating that out of four workmen Utpal Banerjee and Ram Krit Singh Yadav are still in the roll

of the company and others have superannuated from service. It is further stated that Ram Krit Singh Yadav and Utpal

Banerjee filed applications before the Management for withdrawing their case. Heard learned advocate and union

representative. It appears to me that the contention of the workmen still on roll has been put to rest by the way of their

promotions and no claim is made by the other two who retired from service. Under such circumstance, the Industrial

Dispute is disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 577.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

01/2020) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[l-a ,y- 22012/104/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023

[No. L- 22012/104/2019 – IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 01 OF 2020

PARTIES: Biru Bhuiya.

1116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vs.

Management of Khottadih Colliery of M/s. ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Budhan Keshri, learned advocate.

For the Management:

Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

23.03.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/104/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 07.01.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Khottadih Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management delaying the matter and not processing the

compassionate employment to Shri Biru Bhuiya S/o Late Kesho Bhuia, Ex-Haulage operator

of Khottadih Colliery of ECL is proper, Legal and justified? If not, what relief Shri Biru

Bhuiya and legal heirs of late Kesho Bhuia is entitled to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/104/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 07.01.2020 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 01 of 2020 was registered on 15.01.2020

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

2. Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate appeared for the Management of Khottadih Colliery.

Mr. Budhan Keshri, learned advocate for the petitioner, Biru Bhuiya filed Vokalatnama as well as an application

stating that the petitioner does not intend to proceed with this case. Copy of application is served upon the

Management. Heard learned advocate.

3. Biru Bhuiya, the petitioner appeared and admitted that he does not want to proceed and the Industrial

Dispute may be disposed of. No written statement has been filed by the workman. It appears to me that the workman

is not inclined to proceed further with this case. Under such circumstance the Reference case is disposed of in the

form of No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 578.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

14/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/3/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1117

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023.

[No. L- 22012/3/2018 –IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present : Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 14 OF 2018

PARTIES: Siw Fakan Ram

Vs.

Management of Shyam Sundarpur Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. Indranil Ghosh, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.03.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/3/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 22.03.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Shyam Sundarpur Colliery, Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Shyamsundarpur Colliery, M/s. E.C. Ltd. by

deduction of increment (SPRA) in respect of Sri Shivfekan Ram, U.G. Loader is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/3/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 22.03.2018 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 14 of 2018 was registered on 02.04.2018

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives. However, no written statement has been filed

by any of the parties till date.

2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative is present and filed a petition along with a copy of Death Certificate

of Siw Fakan Ram, the aggrieved workman in this Reference case. This reference case is pending since 02.04.2018.

Representative of Shyam Sundarpur Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has not taken

any step after Notice.

3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar in his application, filed today, submitted that Siw Fakan Ram expired on 17.08.2021 and

his legal heirs are not interested in proceeding further with this Reference case. In view of the facts and circumstances

the Reference case is disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

1118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 579.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

50/2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/34/2008-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023.

[No. L- 22012/34/2008 –IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present : Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol

REFERENCE NO. 50 OF 2008

PARTIES : Swapan Mondal

v/s

Management of Neamatpur Central Excavation Store, M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the union (Workman):

Swapan Mondal (in person)

For the Management of M/s. ECL: Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate

INDUSTRY:

Coal

STATE :

WEST BENGAL

Dated :

20.03.2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1119

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Central Government through the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-

22012/34/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 29/09/2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employers,

i.e. the Management of M/s. ECL and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in not promoting Shri Swapan Mondal,

Store Keeper Grade-I is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman entitled?”

1. After receiving order No. L-22012/34/2008-IR(CM-II) dated 29/09/2008 from Ministry of Labour,

Government of India, New Delhi, a Reference case No. 50 of 2008 has been registered on 07.10.2008/13.04.2009.

Notice was issued to parties under registered post directing them to appear and file their written statements along with

relevant documents and respective list of witnesses they would like to rely upon and examine. Both the workman and

the Management of ECL have filed written statements. Swapan Mondal was examined as WW-I and faced cross-

examination.

2. The Reference case is fixed up today for appearance of parties and adducing evidence of Management

Witness. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for ECL has filed affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Arvind Kumar, Chief

Manager (Excavation), Neamatpur Central Excavation Store. Some documents have been filed in connection with

service record of Swapan Mondal.

3. The aggrieved workman, Swapan Mondal has also appeared and filed a petition praying for disposing the

case as he does not want to proceed further. The question for adjudicating is whether the Management of ECL is

justified in not promoting Swapan Mondal, Store Keeper Grade-I. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Management Witness-I

produced copy of service register of Swapan Mondal as Exhibit M-1, important service record excerpt as Exhibit M-2

and a copy of Bio-data of the workman bearing signature of Swapan Mondal as Exhibit M-3. The witness deposed

that the date of appointment of Swapan Mondal is 14/01/1974. According to criteria for promotion in the cadre

scheme one has to pass Matriculate examination but Swapan Mondal did not have any such qualification. As he did

not possess the minimum educational qualification for his next promotion he was not considered for the promotion,

though he was one of senior staff members. Cross-examination of witness was declined by Swapan Mondal. In

Exhibit M-3, column No. 11(a) it is noted that he appeared in his School Final examination. Therefore, it is clear that

Swapan Mondal did not pass school Final or Matriculation examination, necessary for being considered for his

promotion.

4. On earlier occasion Swapan Mondal filed affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined. He stated that he was

last promoted on 12/08/1992 but was not considered for the higher next grade. In paragraph six of affidavit-in-chief,

WW-I stated that all other persons junior to him were promoted from store keeper Grade –I to Clerical special grade

on 24/08/2005 but he did not get promotion in spite of seniority. Swapan Mondal submitted that he has already

superannuated from his service and has no further claim against the employer.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the aggrieved workman has already superannuated

from service and did not have adequate qualification for promotion at time he raised this dispute. Therefore, I find

that Swapan Mondal is not entitled to any relief in this case. The reference case is disposed of against him.

Hence,

ORDER

Swapan Mondal, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed herein and the Reference case is

disposed of against him. Let an Award be passed in light of my above findings. Let copies of Award be

communicated to the Ministry for information and necessary action.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 580.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, भारत नगर, गाजियाबाि (यूपी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

मिासजचव, भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स यूजनयन (सीटू); भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स वकवसव यूजनयन (एचएमएस) और भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स

श्रजमक रेड यूजनयन (इंटस), गाजियाबाि (यूपी), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम

न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 22/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै

िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.03.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y- 14011/19/2013 -vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bharat Nager, Ghaziabad (U.P), and The General Secretary,Bharat

Electronics Union (CITU) ; Bharat Electronics Workers Union (HMS) & Bharat Electronics Shramik Trade Union

(INTUS), Ghaziabad (U.P), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

31.03.2023.

[No. L- 14011/19/2013– IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 22/2014

Date of Passing Award- 24^th March, 2023.

Between:

The General Secretary,

Bharat Electronics Union (CITU),

Bharat Electronics Workers Union(HMS) &

Bharat Electronics Shramik Trade Union (INTUS)

Ghaziabad (U.P)

….Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Bharat Nager,

Ghaziabad (U.P)

….Management

Appearances:-

Claimant in person

SH. Kamal Kant Tyagi, Ld.A/R for the management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of(i) The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd. Bharat Nager, and its

workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-14011/19/2013(IR(DU) dated 05/03/2014 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect’;

“Whether the demand of unions of Bharat Electronics Ltd. Ghaziabad for the payment of

PPI for their excellent performance instead of very good for the non executive workmen for

the year 2011-2012 is just and fair? If not, for what relief the workmen are entitled?”

As per the claim statement jointly filed by the unions representing the employees of Bharat Electronic Ltd.

have stated that the unions have been recognized by the mgt. The mgt is a public sector undertaking own by

Government of India registered under the provisions of Factory Act. The mgt is engaged in manufacturing and

production of high and electronic component used by the defense establishment of the country.

The mgt introduced a new leave rule and rule relating to encashment of earned leave which was changed

from the divisor 26 to divisor 30. The unions represting the workman made demand for restoration of theold rule and

policy. But the mgt necer paid any heed to the same. A General Body meeting of the unions was held and it was

unanimously resolved that a demand notice shall be served on the mgt for implementation of the old rule regarding

the leave and ecashment kof leave. The mgt. did nto reply to the demand notice and as such a dispute was raised by

the workman union before the conciliation officer Dehradun. In the said conciliation. Thus, the appropriate

Government referred the matter for adjudication in terms of the reference.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1121

Being noticed the mgt appeared and filed w/s denying the stand taken by the workmen unions. It has been

sated that mgt is public sector company and having its own rules regulating the service condition of the employees.

By officer order dated 03.12.1997 the company had farmed a scheme for encashment of annual leave by the

employee. This scheme was modified form time to time. As per the scheme of 1997, the computation od encashment

to annual leave amount per day was to e arrives by dividing monthly wage that is basic wages plus DA by 30 days.

That office order of 03.12.1997 was modified with effect from 30. 05. 1982 by virtue of which the computation of

encashment of annual leave per day was to be arrived by dividing the monthly basic wage and DA by 26 days

instead of f30 days . that office order was again order was again modified on 04. 04. 1985 and as per the modification

the mgt reserves the right to interpet modify, reverse of withdraw this above scheme at its discretion. During the

annual audit in the year 2005 carried out by CAG objection was raised on computation of encashment of annual leave

by dividing monthly wage by 26 days instead of 30 days. Thus, the mgt modified the scheme for use of divisor 30

instead of 26. The objection and demand taken by the unions is baseless illegal and liable to be rejected.

The claimants filed rejoinder re- writing the stand taken in the claim petition.

On this rival pleadings. The following were framed for adjudication.

Issues

1. Whether the action of the mgt BEL Ghaziabad not allowing encashment of annual leave as is being done

in other units of BEL amounts to violation of section 9A of the ID Act, 1947. If so, it's effect?

2. Whether the dispute has been espoused as required under law, if so it’s effect?

3. To what relief the workman entitled to”

The claimants thereafter were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their claim. Several opportunities

were allowed for the purpose and for non appearance of the claimants fresh notices were also issued. Despite that

when the claimants did not turn up, the opportunity for adducing evidence was closed. Thereafter the management

was called upon to adduce evidence. But there being no evidence adduced by the claimants to discharge the burden of

proof, the management expressed that no evidence by the management shall be adduced. Hence evidence was closed,

argument was heard being advanced by the management.

During argument the learned AR for the management submitted that the burden of proof being on the

claimant, they opted not to adduce evidence. Whereas the stand taken in the claim petition has not been substantiated

the stand taken by the management stands unrebutted. Hence the claim be decided against the claimants.

On hearing the argument advanced by the management it is held that the claim advanced by the claimants has

not been established. Hence a no dispute award is to be passed. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The reference be, and the same is answered against the claimants. The claim having not been established,

this no dispute award is passed.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 581.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, भारत नगर,गाजियाबाि (यूपी) , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 21/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै

िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.03.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[l-a ,y-14011/20/2013-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd.,Bharat Nager, Ghaziabad (U.P), and The General Secretary,Bharat

Electronics Union (CITU) ; Bharat Electronics Workers Union (HMS) & Bharat Electronics Shramik Trade Union

(INTUS), Ghaziabad (U.P),, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

31.03.2023.

[No. L-14011/20/2013– IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 21/2014

Date of Passing Award- 24^th March, 2023.

Between:

The General Secretary,

Bharat Electronics Union (CITU),

Bharat Electronics Workers Union(HMS) &

Bharat Electronics Shramik Trade Union (INTUS)

Ghaziabad (U.P)

…. Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Bharat Nager,

Ghaziabad (U.P)

….Management

Appearances:-

Claimant in person

SH. Kamal Kant Tyagi, Ld.A/R for the management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of(i) The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd. Bharat Nager, and its

workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-14011/20/2013(IR(DU) dated 05/03/2014 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect’;

“Whether the action of the management of BEL, Ghaziabad dated 02.04.2009 vide

order No. 12935/18/GAD/ER through its General Manager for introducing new

attendance system SAP in the unit of employees without following the prodedure

provided under clause 10 of IE (SO) Act, 1946 is just and fair if not to what relief the

unions are entitled to?”

As per the claim statement jointly filed by the unions representing the employees of Bharat Electronic Ltd.

have stated that the unions have been recognized by the mgt. The mgt is a public sector undertaking own by

Government of India registered under the provisions of Factory Act. The mgt is engaged in manufacturing and

production of high and electronic component used by the defense establishment of the country.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1123

The mgt introduced a rule regarding attendance and late coming of the workman in Ghaziabad by

incorporating Section 8 in the original satisfy standing order as per this all workmen shall report for work in the

factory at the time fixed and notified as per the standing order no. 5. The attendance of all workmen except the causal

workers will be recorded on the time card. This time card will constitute the primary record of attendance and the

workmen will lose their attendance and wage if they do not clock in or clock out in time. The location of the time

recording clock will be decided by the mgt keeping in view the convenience of the staff. The workmen coming late or

leaving early without permission shall be liable to proportionate deduction in wage. However, a grace period of ten

minute shall be allowed for late attendance which shall be for three times in a month. When this system was in bough

for several years and accepted by all as a service condition, the mgt suddenly changed the same by issue a circular

dated 02.04.2009. While introducing a new system of attendance which was found detrimental to the interest of the

workmen, the mgt had never consulted or negotiated with the unions of the workmen. Being aggrieved the unions

raised objections and demanded implementation of the old system. But the mgt. remain adamant in the meeting held

between the mgt and workmen union the mgt explained that the change in attendance procedure is a simple

administrative act which falls under section 22 of the standing order. But the union demanded implementation of the

old system on the ground that the change amount to violation of section 9A of the ID Act. Finding no other way in

industrial dispute was raised before the labor commissioner (Central) were steps were taken for conciliation. Since the

conciliation failed the appropriate Government referred the matter for adjudication in terms of the reference.

The mgt being noticed filed w/s stating there in the proceeding is not maintainable. In addition to that it is

pleaded that the claimants for alleged violation of section 10 of the Industrial Employment Standing Order Act should

have approached the satisfying officer appointed under the Standing Order Act. While admitting about the

introduction of new attendance system in the unit at Ghaziabad with effect from 02.04.2009 the mgt has stated that

the said introduction has no way caused prejudice to the workmen. Rather the mgt reserves the right of introduced

such changes for effective functioning of the mgt. Thereby the mgt had prayed of dismissal of the claim as not

maintainable ON the rival pleadings. The following issues are framed by order dated 11.04.2017

Issues

Whether the action of the mgt BEL Ghaziabad vide order dated 02.04.2009 introducing new attendance

system SAT without following the procedure provided in clause 10 of the standing order act 1946 is just and

fair? if so , its effect?

If not, to what relief the unions are entitled to?

The claimants thereafter were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their claim. Several opportunities

were allowed for the purpose and for non appearance of the claimants fresh notices were also issued. Despite that

when the claimants did not turn up, the opportunity for adducing evidence was closed. Thereafter the management

was called upon to adduce evidence. But there being no evidence adduced by the claimants to discharge the burden of

proof, the management expressed that no evidence by the management shall be adduced. Hence evidence was closed,

argument was heard being advanced by the management.

During argument the learned AR for the management submitted that the burden of proof being on the

claimant, they opted not to adduce evidence. Whereas the stand taken in the claim petition has not been substantiated

the stand taken by the management stands unrebutted. Hence the claim be decided against the claimants.

On hearing the argument advanced by the management it is held that the claim advanced by the claimants has

not been established. Hence a no dispute award is to be passed. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The reference be, and the same is answered against the claimants. The claim having not been established, this no

dispute award is passed.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

1124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 582.—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;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (जिकायत संख्या 03/2002)

और (जिकायत संख्या 01/2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/214/98-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (COMPLAINT.No.03/2002) & (COMPLAINT.No.01/2004) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the Management of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023

[No. L-22012/214/98- IR(CM -II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

COMPLAINT NO. 03 OF 2002

COMPLAINT NO. 01 OF 2004

Balmukund Sharma.

Vs.

Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Manoj Mukherjee, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2004

Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited.

Vs.

Balmukund Sharma.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

For the Workman:

Mr. Manoj Mukherjee, Advocate.

Industry:

Coal.

State:

West Bengal.

Dated:

25.01.2023.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1125

AWARD

Afore mentioned three cases which have arisen out of alleged change in condition of service to the prejudice

of workman, his remaining absent from duty and consequent dismissal of the workman are taken up together for

convenience of adjudication. A brief profile of the two Complaint cases filed by Balmukund Sharma (hereinafter

referred as the workman), an employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred as M/s. BCCL) is

that in Complaint No. 03 of 2002 filed on 07.10.2002 under section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the

workman alleged that while an Industrial Dispute relating to his regularisation as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade

– III was pending before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol, bearing Reference No.

44 of 1999, the Employer M/s. BCCL by Order dated 12.09.2002 transferred him from Dahibari Colliery of

M/s. BCCL to Basantimata Colliery of M/s. BCCL to an inferior post of Fitter Apprentice and released him from his

place of posting on 16.09.2002 in violation of the provisions contained under section 33 (1) of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947. The complainant therefore, prayed for cancellation of the Order of Transfer in respect of the workman till

disposal of the Reference case.

During pendency of the Reference case No. 44 of 1999 M/s. BCCL, the opposite party, Employer

issued Charge Sheet dated 07.12.2002 (Ext.M-2) to the workman for his unauthorized absence, misconduct and

disobedience of order of higher authority. It is alleged that the workman failed to submit any satisfactory reply to the

Charge Sheet. Accordingly, a Departmental Enquiry was held by an independent officer who provided reasonable

opportunity to the workman to defend his case. The Enquiry Officer in his Report observed that the charge of

misconduct was fully established against the workman and on the basis of his report a second Show Cause Notice was

issued to the opposite party. As the opposite party failed to submit any satisfactory explanation in respect of the

enquiry made against him, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from his service vide order of dismissal

bearing No. DB:XII:Agent:04:Dismissal:04/44 dated 09/16.01.2004. Letter of dismissal from service was issued after

he was paid one month’s wage under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

In their application dated 19.01.2004 the Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited prayed before the

Tribunal for approving the action of dismissal of the workman, Balmukund Sharma by the Management of

M/s. BCCL.

As a counter blast the workman filed a separate Complaint bearing No. 01 of 2004 dated 23.04.2004,

contending that the order of dismissal passed against him is illegal as the condition of his service was changed

adversely to his interest during pendency of the industrial dispute without any express permission from this Tribunal

and prayed for quashing the order of his dismissal dated 16.01.2004 and payment of wages to him w.e.f. 16.01.2004.

All three cases were disposed of together by my predecessor in this Tribunal who passed a common Award

dated 02.12.2009, whereby the action of the Management of M/s. BCCL was considered improper and illegal and that

the transfer of the workman, altering the condition of service during pendency of the Industrial Dispute was held to be

a contravention of provisions under section 33(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It was held that the order of

dismissal of the workman w.e.f. 16.01.2004 was not sustainable and was set aside and it was held that the

Application bearing No. 01 of 2004 filed by the Employer Company for post facto approval of order of dismissal was

not sustainable. Relief was provided to the workman by way of an order of reinstatement in service and payment of

full back wages.

The impugned order dated 02.12.2009 passed by my predecessor in chair in the aforesaid three (3) cases

were assailed by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the General Manager, Chanch Victoria Area, in Writ

petition No.11852 (W) of 2010. Hon’ble Single Bench of High Court at Calcutta disposed of the Writ application on

24.04.2019 observing as follows:

“This Court finds that the Tribunal has found finding of intentional victimization of the workman by the writ

petitioner, in transferring him and forcing him to perform works of a difficult nature, without any evidence oral or

documentary being led in this regard by either side.

This Court, therefore, has no hesitation to hold that a large number of findings of the Tribunal against the

Industry are based on conjecture and surmise. In facts of the case, the parties ought to have been allowed to lead

evidence in the matter and it is only after a trial on evidence that the Tribunal should have proceeded to come to any

legitimate finding with regard to either any act or omission on the part of the Industry or the Workman.

In those circumstances, the impugned order shall stand set aside.”

These three (3) proceedings have been remanded to this Tribunal for adjudication afresh. The Tribunal has

been directed to frame issues on all three cases and parties are to be allowed to lead evidence both oral and

documentary before the Tribunal. It has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court that the matter shall thereafter

be dealt with suitably by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 and that the applications to be disposed of within a period of three (3) months from the date of

communication of the order.

1126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Order passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 11852(W) of 2010 was

communicated to the office of this Tribunal on 27.05.2019. At the relevant time the Tribunal was laying vacant and

the Presiding Officer of CGIT, Guwahati was in-charge as the Link Officer. The case was put up before the Presiding

Officer/ Link Officer, in-charge of this Tribunal on 28.09.2021 and thereafter on my assuming charge it was put up

before me on 05.09.2022. Separate issues were framed in all three (3) cases by this Tribunal are as follows:

Complain No. 03 of 2002 :

Issue (i) : Whether the order of transfer of the workman from the Dahibari Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal

Limited to Basantimata Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited by Order DCPM/XII/03/A-

2/2002/1675 dated 12.09.2002 during pendency of the Reference Case 44 of 1999 before CGIT, Asansol

is justified and legally tenable and justified.

Application No. 01 of 2004 :

Issue (ii) : Whether the Award of dismissal of the workman bearing Ref. No. DB:XII:Agent:Dismissal:04:44 dated

09/16.01.2004 and the punishment awarded to him by the Management is justified, proportionate and in

accordance with the gravity of the alleged misconduct? If so, whether the action taken by the

Management may be approved?

Complain No. 01 of 2004 :

Issue (iii) : Whether the order dated 09/19.01.2004 for dismissal of the workman passed by the Management of

M/s. BCCL is liable to be quashed / set aside?

Opportunity was given to the workman as well as the Management of M/s. BCCL to adduce their evidence in

support of their respective cases. Balmukund Sharma filed his Affidavit-in-chief on 06.12.2022 along with his

documents. He was cross-examined on behalf of M/s. BCCL and documents produced by him have been marked as

Exhibit W-1 to W-22.

Exhibit W-1 is a copy of letter of appointment of the workman dated 17.08.1990 / 05.09.1990.

II. Exhibit W-2 is a copy of the Office Order dated 10.09.1991 by which he was posted from Underground

Loader to Fitter Apprentice.

III. Exhibit W-3 is a copy of the letter dated 28/29.01.1994 issued to the workman for undergoing training.

IV. Exhibit W-4 is a copy of the Order dated 22.04.1999 of the Reference case No. 44/1999 from Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Government of India.

V. Exhibit W-5 is a copy of the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 25941 (W) of

2017.

VI. Exhibit W-6 is a copy of the Order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) – II, Asansol dated

02.07.1997 by which the Agent of Victoria West Colliery of BCCL was requested to maintain status quo

till finalization of the matter.

VII. Exhibit W-7 is a copy of the Office Order dated 22.01.1999 issued by the Agent of Victoria West Colliery

of BCCL.

VIII.

Exhibit W-8 is a copy of the Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H dated 16.01.2001.

IX. Exhibit W-9 is a copy of the Office order dated 16.01.2001, issued by the Area Personnel Manager for

transfer the workman from Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL to Dahibari Colliery of M/s. BCCL.

X. Exhibit W-10 is a copy of the Office order issued by the Agent at Dahibari Colliery regarding Balmukund

Sharma’s reporting to duty at Dahibari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in Fitter Apprentice.

XI. Exhibit W-11 is a copy of Office order of Transfer by which he was transferred from Dahibari Colliery

to Basantimata Colliery.

XII. Exhibit W-12 is a copy of the Charge Sheet dated 07.12.2002 issued by the Manager of Dahibari

Colliery as the workman did not report for duty from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery.

XIII.

Exhibit W-13 is a copy of the written objection of the workman against letter no. D/B/Agent/XII/02/26

dated 09.01.2003.

XIV.

Exhibit W-14 is a copy of the reply of the Management against written objection of the workman.

XV. Exhibit W-15 is a copy of Enquiry Report submitted by Senior Personnel Officer of Dahibari Colliery of

M/s. BCCL.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1127

XVI.

Exhibit W-16 is a copy of the second Show cause notice dated 01.07.2003 after completion of the

Enquiry.

XVII.

Exhibit W-17 is a copy of the reply dated 09.07.2003 submitted by the workman against the second

Show Cause notice.

XVIII.

Exhibit W-18 is a copy of the Letter of Dismissal dated 09/16.01.2004 issued by Project Officer of

Dahibari Colliery of M/s. BCCL.

XIX.

Exhibit W-19 is a copy of the R.T.I. Application dated 07.02.2020 of the workman addressed to the

Central Public Information Officer, Director General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad (marked as).

XX. Exhibit W-20 is a copy of the reply to RTI application in Hindi. Exhibit W-20/1 is a copy of the English

translation of the reply to the R.T.I. Application.

XXI.

Exhibit W-21 is a copy of the Enquiry Proceeding.

XXII.

Exhibit W-22 is a copy of the Award dated 16.02.2017 passed by CGIT, Asansol in Reference case No.

44 of 1999.

Mr. Brajanath Banerjee was examined as Management Witness-1 on behalf of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. He

was cross-examined at length. Management produced documents which have been marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-8.

Exhibit M-1 is a copy of the Office Order dated 12.09.2002.

II. Exhibit M-2 is a copy of the Charge Sheet was issued against Bal Mukund Sharma on 07.12.2002.

III. Exhibit M-3 is a copy of the letter for enquiry dated 16.01.2003 issued by the Agent, Dahibari Colliery

addressed to the workman.

IV. Exhibit M-4 is a copy of the Enquiry Proceeding.

V. Exhibit M-5 is a copy of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Mr. S. K. Ghosh.

VI. Exhibit M-6 is a copy of the Note Sheet initiated by the Agent of Dahibari Colliery from 28.07.2003 to

19.12.2003 for taking disciplinary action against the workman Bal Mukund Sharma.

VII. Exhibit M-7 is a copy of the second Show cause notice issued to the workman.

VIII.

Exhibit M-8 is a copy of the Memorandum of Settlement in Form ‘H’ dated 16.01.2001.

The genesis of the dispute between the parties lies in an Industrial Dispute raised on behalf of Balmukund

Sharma, the workman. A Reference case was initiated by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi in exercise of jurisdiction vested under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, formulating the question for adjudication as to whether the action of

Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in denying regularisation of Balmukund Sharma, Fitter

Apprentice is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? The Reference case was initiated by Order No.

L-22012/214/98/IR(CM-II) dated 22.04.1999

10.

At the outset it would be appropriate to consider the facts of the Reference Case No. 44 of 1999 in order to

appreciate the relation of the extant cases with the subject matter of the Industrial Dispute initially raised. The

workman joined his service under M/s. BCCL as Under Ground Loader on 24.10.1990 as a dependent of his father-in-

law. He was subsequently re-designated as “Fitter Apprentice” at Basantimata Colliery of M/s. BCCL in Category-I

and continued in the post of Fitter Apprentice up to February, 1993. He was transferred to the Area Workshop in

March, 1993 in the same capacity. He was again transferred from Area Workshop to Victoria West Colliery of

M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited as Fitter Apprentice. He completed his three (3) years training period in September,

1994, but was not imparted any training by the Management. He was called for training at E. M. T. I. , Dhansar

vide letter no. 2817 dated 29.01.1994, but was not spared for such training and he continued to work as per

direction of the Agent. The upgradation of his post was due after completion of three (3) years’ training period but he

was not promoted to the post of Fitter in Category-IV. Even after completion of eleven (11) years of his service, he

was designated as “Fitter Apprentice” and getting wages as Category -I which is the lowest wage category of a daily

rated employee. While working at Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL he was authorized to work as a Lamp Issue

Clerk in Clerical Grade -III w.e.f. 03.01.1996. Despite working as Lamp Issue Clerk, the workman was paid wages

applicable to Category-I and not for Lamp Issue Clerk. Being aggrieved with such treatment Balmukund Sharma

raised dispute before the Tribunal, praying for direction to the Management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL

to regularise Balmukund Sharma as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III with retrospective effect from 03.01.1996

and re-fix his pay as per National Coal Wage Agreement -V and VI and pay arrears of wages arising out of such

regularisation. After considering the evidence on record my predecessor in this Tribunal by Award dated 16.02.2017

1128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

held that the action of the Management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited in denying

regularisation of Balmukund Sharma to Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III was unjustified. The Management of

Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Cocking Coal Limited was also directed to regularise Balmukund Sharma,

Apprentice Fitter as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III w.e.f. 03.01.1996 and accordingly re-fix his wages as per

National Coal Wage Agreement- V and VI.

11.

The Order passed in the Reference case No. 44 of 1999 was assailed before the Hon’ble High Court at

Calcutta in Writ petition No. 25941 (W) of 2017. Copy of Hon’ble court’s judgement has been placed in evidence by

the workman which is marked as Exhibit Ext.W-5. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court it has been

observed that the petitioner cannot avoid treating the service as regular and nothing was brought before the Hon’ble

High Court to show that the Award had been interfered with. The Writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

12.

The Management of M/s. BCCL failed to produce any material to show that the Award passed by the

Tribunal on 16.02.2017, directing regularisation of Balmukund Sharma to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical

Grade -III w.e.f. 03.01.1996 was interfered or set aside by any Forum. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the

Reference case initiated in earlier point of time regarding regularisation of Balmukund Sharma to the post of Lamp

Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade-III is binding upon the Management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking

Coal Limited.

13.

In Complaint No. 03 of 2002 under section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the workman contended

that while an Industrial Dispute regarding his regularisation as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III was pending

before this Tribunal for adjudication in Reference case No. 44 of 1999, he was transferred from Victoria West

Colliery to Dahibari Colliery and then to Basantimata Colliery by Order dated 12.09.2002 and was released from

Dahibari Colliery w.e.f. 16.09.2002 in violation of the provisions under section 33(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947 much to its prejudice.

14.

In the written statement the Agent of Dahibari Colliery stated that the workman was transferred from

Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery w.e.f. 15.09.2002 due to closure of the mine but the complainant did not

comply with the order, due to which the Agent of Dahibari Colliery issued Charge Sheet against the workman. It is

further claimed that transfer is incidental to service and there is no illegality in issuing the order of transfer to a

workman. In this case the workman in his Affidavit-in-chief has stated that he joined the Company on 24.10.1990 on

the basis of his letter of appointment (produced as Exhibit Ext.W-1). Initially he was posted as Piece Rated

Underground Mazdoor / Loader. In August, 1991 he was re-designated as ‘Fitter Apprentice’ as he was a matriculate

and performed his duty as Fitter Apprentice at Basantimata Colliery. Subsequently he was transferred to Area

Workshop in 1993 in the same post and worked there up to May,1995. In June,1995 he was transferred from Area

Workshop to Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited as Fitter Apprentice and he was allowed to

work as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III from 03.01.1996. The workman produced a copy of letter issued

from E.M.T.I., Dhansar dated 28/29.01.1994, for undergoing his training as per the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 (Exhibit

Ext.W-3) but he was not released by the Manager for his training. On and from 03.01.1996 the Agent allowed him to

perform the duty of Lamp Issue Clerk by the Agent of the Company and the letter dated 03.01.1996 was issued in his

favour. However, in course of evidence no such document was produced by the workman. In Reference Case No. 44

of1999, an Award was passed directing regularization of his service in the post of Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade

-III in the Colliery. A copy of the Award has been produced as Exhibit Ext.W-22. On a careful reading of the Award,

it appears that the said letter dated 03.01.1996, issued by the Agent, authorizing Balmukund Sharma to work as

Lamp Issue Clerk was taken into consideration. In paragraph eight (8) it has been mentioned that the workman filed

the letter dated 03.01.1996 issued by the Agent of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

authorizing Balmukund Sharma, Fitter Apprentice to work as Lamp Issue Clerk at Victoria West Colliery w.e.f.

03.01.1996. The workman also filed photocopies of Certificates issued to him on 16.09.1997, 16.11.1997, 21.11.1997,

08.12.1997, and 29.12.1997 showing that he was allowed to work as a Lamp Issue Clerk. It may be mentioned herein

that the said documents were not admitted in evidence but at the time of disposing the Reference reliance was placed

upon them as co-workers Ram Niwas Kanu and (PW-2) and Ganga Mahato (PW-3) have stated in their evidence that

Balmukund Sharma had performed the job of Lamp Issue Clerk. In cross-examination of witness PW-1, PW-2, and

PW-3 their evidence could not be dislodged. No evidence was adduced by the Management of Victoria West Colliery

of M/s. BCCL that such authorization or Certificates were not issued in favour of Balmukund Sharma to work as

Lamp Issue Clerk.

15.

In the Reference Case No. 44 of 1999 it was held that the post of Lamp Issue Clerk was existing in the

Colliery and reference to “Clerical Staff” has been made in the “Nomenclature, job description and categorization of

coal employees”. Regarding the letter of authorization issued by the Agent of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL,

this Tribunal arrived at a finding that such authorization was not challenged and the Agent who is said to have issued

the letter was not summoned as a witness to challenge its authenticity. Accordingly, the claim of Balmukund Sharma

for regularisation to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III was found justified and an Award was passed

for regularisation of the workman as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III w.e.f. 03.01.1996.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1129

16.

The finding in Reference case No. 44 of 1999 is significant for the purpose of determining the dispute

involve in these three (3) cases under consideration. In his complaint under section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act,

1947 filed on 07.10.2002, the workman challenged the order of his transfer from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata

Colliery during pendency of the Industrial Dispute. In his evidence-in-chief Workman Witness-1 has stated that

during pendency of the Reference Case he was transferred to Dahibari Colliery from Victoria West Colliery and

joined on 17.01.2001. Thereafter he filed a complaint under section 33 A of the Act before CGIT, Asansol, disclosing

that he was once again transfer by the Management dated 16.09.2002 from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery

and the release is violative of the provisions contained in section 33 (1) of the Act. In the second Complaint case No.

01 of 2004 he contended that his dismissal during pendency of the Complaint Case by order dated 09/16.01.2004 on

the basis of perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer is in violation of the clause 27.2.6 of the Standing Order, where it

is provided that “No order of discharge or dismissal from service shall be made by an authority lower than the

appointing authority of the workman”.

17.

Mr. Brajanath Banerjee (Management Witness -1), Senior Officer (Personnel) at Basantimata Dahibari

Colliery under Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL stated in his Affidavit-in-chief that the workman was transferred

from Victoria West Colliery to Dahibari Colliery and he joined on 16.01.2001 as per terms of settlement in Form ‘H’.

The witness referred to a Memorandum of Settlement in Form ‘H’ executed by Balmukund Sharma, Management

representative, and Union representative on condition that he would be allowed to resume his duty as a ‘Fitter

Apprentice’ with immediate effect. Furthermore, the workman would not be paid any wages from 04.06.1999 till the

date of resumption of his duty at Dahibari Colliery and the period of absence from duty would be treated as dies non.

According to settlement the attendance of Balmukund Sharma would be monitored for a period of three (3) months

and in case of his unauthorized absence, disciplinary action would be started against him including removal from his

service. Balmukund Sharma was transferred from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery w.e.f. 12.09.2002 and he

was released on 16.09.2002. In spite of his release, he did not report to the place of his posting, for which a Charge

Sheet was issued by the Management under letter no. 2091 dated 07.12.2002 for violation of Clause 26.1.1 and

26.1.10 of the Certified Standing Order of M/s. BCCL applicable to the employee. The workman participated in the

Domestic Enquiry, where the Disciplinary Authority after conclusion of the proceeding submitted his Enquiry Report

and found Balmukund Sharma guilty of the charges. A second show cause notice was duly sent to the workman and

after careful consideration of the entire proceeding the Disciplinary Authority passed an Order of dismissal of the

workman from service, vide Order Ref. No. 44 dated 16.01.2004. In this regard a Note Sheet was issued by the Agent

of Dahibari Colliery on 28.07.2003 recommending his dismissal. The General manager of Chanch Victoria Area of

M/s. BCCL approved the dismissal and the same was communicated by the Project Officer of Dahibari Colliery.

According to the Management Witness the Project Officer filed an application before this Tribunal under section 33

(2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for approval of the dismissal of Balmukund Sharma.

18.

The crux of the issue is whether there had been any change in condition of service of the workman prejudice

to his interest due to transfer from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery in the post of ‘Fitter Apprentice’ during

the pendency of the Industrial Dispute in Reference case No. 44 of 1999. It may be gathered from the evidence

adduced by the workman in these cases is that he had raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Asansol- II for his regularization to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk w.e.f. 03.01.1996,

complaining that he was being diverted to his original job during pendency of such dispute, the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Asansol-II by his letter no. 11(58)/97-E-3 dated 02.07.1997 (Ext.W-6) requested the Agent

of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL to maintain status-quo and allow the workman to work as Lamp Issue Clerk

till finalization of the matter. The Affidavit-in-chief of the Management Witness -1 reveals that on the basis of

Memorandum of Settlement in Form ‘H’ Balmukund Sharma was transferred from Victoria West Colliery of M/s.

BCCL to Dahibari Colliery and was allowed to resume his duty as a ‘Fitter Apprentice’ w.e.f. 16.01.2001. Thereafter,

Balmukund Sharma was again transferred from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery in the same post, i.e. ‘Fitter

Apprentice’ w.e.f. 12.09.2002 and was released on 16.09.2002.

19.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for M/s. BCCL argued that at the time of his transfer from Victoria West

Colliery to Dahibari Colliery and then to Basantimata Colliery, the workman was in the post of ‘Fitter Apprentice’.

Therefore, his transfer in the same post of Fitter Apprentice to a different colliery did not result in any change of his

service condition to his prejudice. It is argued that the action of the workman in not complying the order of transfer by

his higher authority resulted in violation of Clause 26.1.1 and 26.1.10 of the Certified Standing Order and his

absence form duty without sufficient cause amounted to misconduct. Due to non-compliance of the Office Order

dated 12.09.2002 (Ext.M-1) a Charge Sheet dated 07.12.2002 (Ext.M-2) was issued to the workman and a Domestic

Enquiry was started against him. The charged employee participated in the Enquiry. After issuing second Show cause

notice dated 01.07.2003 to the workman disclosing the findings of Enquiry Proceeding against him (Ext.M-7) the

Appointing Authority approved the proposal for dismissal and an Order of Dismissal from service was issued against

the workman (Ext.W-18). Learned advocate relied upon the Enquiry Report (Ext.M-5), the Note Sheet dated

28.07.2003 (Ext.M-6), and the Letter of Dismissal dated 09/16.01.2004 (Ext.W-18) issued to Balmukund Sharma. It

1130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is strenuously argued on behalf of M/s. BCCL that the procedure adopted by the Management of the Company against

the workman for his misconduct and unauthorized absence from duty has been well proved and there is no illegality

in the Order of Dismissal issued against him.

20.

Mr. Manoj Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the workman, in reply argued that in compliance with

the settlement dated 16.01.2001 reached amongst the workman, representative of the Union and, representative of the

Management Balmukund Sharma was transfer from Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL to Dahibari Colliery as a

‘Fitter Apprentice’. He joined Dahibari Colliery as a Fitter Apprentice on protest as an Industrial Dispute relating to

his regularisation to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk was pending. Eventually Balmukund Sharma was transferred from

Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery on 12.09.2002 (Ext.W-11). Learned advocate argued that since an

Industrial Dispute was pending transfer of Balmukund Sharma to an inferior post amounted to alteration of his

condition of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of the Industrial Dispute and the

same was prejudicial to the interest of the workman. Learned advocate argued that alteration of such condition of

service could be effected only on obtaining expressed permission, of the Authority in writing, before which the

Industrial Dispute is pending. In the present case no such permission was sought for before the Tribunal, before

passing the Order of Transfer dated 12.09.2002. Learned advocate relied upon the reply received on the basis of R.T.I.

Application from Mines Safety Director, Area No. 2, Dhanbad dated 17.02.2020 (Ext.W-20) which disclose that

Dahibari Colliery was not closed i.e. on 17.02.2020 and that Dahibari Colliery was an open cast project. Learned

advocate argued that even at the time of closure of Dahibari Colliery other staff members were retained and they were

working at Dahibari Colliery. Therefore, Balmukund Sharma should not have been transfer from Dahibari Colliery

during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute.

21.

Learned advocate for the workman further argued that the Charge Sheet issued against the workman (Ext.W-

12) and the Domestic Enquiry held in consequence thereof which led to dismissal of the workman is unjustified and

illegal as the Order of Dismissal was issued by the Project Officer of Dahibari Colliery (Ext. W-18) who is not the

Appointing Authority. It is argued by learned advocate that the Order of Dismissal of the workman was

disproportionate to the gravity of his charge levelled as such same is liable to be set aside and the application for

approval of such dismissal filed by the Management is liable to be dismissed. Learned advocate for the workman

asserted that in the Industrial Dispute in Reference No. 44 of 1999 having been decided in favour of Balmukund

Sharma for regularizing his service w.e.f. 03.01.1996, the change in condition of service caused by the Order of

Transfer dated 12.09.2002 is a clear violation of provisions under section 33 (1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Therefore, the Order of Transfer dated 12.09.2002 is required to be set aside. It is further submitted that Balmukund

Sharma having attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020 necessary order may be passed for payment of his

back wages for the period during which he has been wrongfully dismissed.

22.

Having considered the rival contentions and traversing the evidence adduced by the workman as well as the

Award passed in Reference No. 44 of 1999 dated 16.02.2017 for regularization to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk,

Clerical Grade -III, it appears to me that the issue of regularisation has been set at rest in Writ petition No. 25941 (W)

of 2017. In Award dated 16.02.2017 the Management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL was directed to

regularise Balmukund Sharma, Fitter Apprentice as Lamp Issue Clerk Clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 03.01.1996. This order

has remained un-interfered in Writ petition No. 25941 (W) of 2017 disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta

on 11.06.2018 (Ext.W-5).

23.

Evidence on record establish that the workman had joined his service in the year 1990 as Underground

Loader and was subsequently re-designated as Fitter Apprentice in 1991. Since, August 1991 he remained designated

as a ‘Fitter Apprentice’ till 12.09.2002 at the time of his transfer from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata. On

03.01.1996 he was allowed to perform the duty of Lamp Issue Clerk at Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL.

Certificates and letters of authorization were issued in favour of Balmukund Sharma since 03.01.1996 to 29.12.1997

for performing the work of Lamp Issue Clerk but no order of promotion / regularisation was passed. Therefore, no

legal right accrued in favour of Balmukund Sharma to be treated in the post of Lamp Issue Clerk at the time of

issuance of the transfer order dated 12.09.2002. From the evidence of Mr. Brajanath Banerjee MW-1 it is palpably

clear that in Memorandum of Settlement in Form ‘H’, the workman had agreed to join as Fitter Apprentice at

Dahibari Colliery on transfer from Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL on 16.01.2001 and he was again transferred

from Dahibari Colliery to Basantimata Colliery on 12.09.2002. This statement of Management Witness -1 has not

been refuted. It is argued on behalf of the workman that these transfers and settlements were consistent attempts on

the part of Management to subvert the workman’s claim for regularization to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk which he

held before the transfer.

24.

From the attending facts and admitted position, I have no hesitation to hold that at the time of issuance of the

order of transfer on 12.09.2002 Balmukund Sharma’s right to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk was not formally

approved by the Management and his claim to be treated in the higher post did not accrue in his favour. It is a

fundamental duty of a workman to obey and carry out the orders of higher Authority, who control function of the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1131

industry. If the workman unilaterally seeks to take his own decision in the matter of his functioning in the industrial

establishment, he would only create disharmony, amounting to his misconduct.

25.

In the present case Exhibit Ext.W-8 and Ext.M-8, the Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.01.2001 reveals

that Shri B. M. Sharma, Fitter Apprentice, Victoria West Colliery was earlier chargesheeted for his unauthorized

absence from 04.06.1999 to 09.09.1999 without any information and sufficient cause. The employee was found

guilty of the charge and his dismissal was recommended. However, leniency was shown to him and issue

was resolved by allowing him to join as Fitter Apprentice at Dahibari Colliery.

26.

The workman thereafter has challenged his order of transfer dated 12.09.2002 under section 33 A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that by such impugned order of transfer, condition of his service relating to

matter connected with the Industrial Dispute had been changed to his prejudice and no express permission was

obtained by the Management of the Company before his transfer to Basantimata Colliery. On threadbare evaluation of

facts and the law involved I hold that the order passed on 12.09.2002, ordering transfer of Balmukund Sharma to the

‘Fitter Apprentice’ did not amount to any change in condition of his service connected with the Industrial Dispute in

Reference case no. 44 of 1999. The workman ought to have complied the lawful order of higher Authority in

accordance with the Standing Order applicable to him. Therefore, no expressed permission was required for

transferring the workman along one hundred and forty-nine (149) other workmen due to closure of the mine. The

workman cannot be permitted to dictate his own terms and remain absent as it would be counterproductive to the

industry where he is employed. Such act of a workman is paradoxical to the object of an industry. Furthermore, the

information provided on the basis of R.T.I. application (Ext.W-20/1) does not establish if Dahibari Colliery was

functional in September, 2002. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the provision of section 33 (2) (a) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which lays down that, during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an

industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in

such dispute or terms of the contract alter in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of

service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding and section 33 (2) (b)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or

punish the workman by dismissal or otherwise, provided he has been paid wages for one month and an application has

been made by the employer to the Authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval.

27.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs. Ram

Gopal Sharma and others; 2002 (92) FLR 667 (SC) held that:

“6.

Answer to the question on which conflicting decisions are rendered, as noticed above, depends on a

fair reading and proper interpretation of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Prior to the amendment of 1956, provision

contained in Section 33 corresponded to the present Section 33(1) only. The object behind enacting Section 33, as it

stood before it was amended in 1956, was to allow continuance of industrial proceedings pending before any

authority/court/tribunal prescribed by the Act in a peaceful atmosphere undisturbed by any other industrial dispute.

In course of time, it was felt that unamended Section 33 was too stringent for it placed a total ban on the right of the

employer to make any alteration in conditions of service or to make any order of discharge or dismissal even in cases

where such alteration in conditions of service or passing of an order of dismissal or discharge, was not in any

manner connected with the dispute pending before an industrial authority. It appears, therefore, that Section 33 was

amended in 1956 permitting the employer to make changes in conditions of service or to discharge or dismiss an

employee in relation to matters not connected with the pending industrial dispute. At the same time, it seems to have

been felt that there was need to provide some safeguards for a workman who may be discharged or dismissed during

the pendency of a dispute on account of some matter unconnected with the dispute. This position is clear by reading

re- drafted expanded Section 33 in 1956 containing five sub-sections. For the present purpose, we are concerned with

the proviso to Section 33(2)(b).

The material and relevant portion of Section 33 reads :

"Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. --

(1)..............

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance

with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing order,

in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman -

(a) ..........................

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that

workman;

Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and

an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval

of the action taken by the employer.”

1132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of the above discussion and findings, I hold that the Management of Employer Company has not violated the

provisions of section 33 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by passing the Order of Transfer dated 12.09.2002 in

respect of Balmukund Sharma during pendency of the Industrial Dispute in Reference case no. 44 of 1999.

Therefore, the Complaint case no. 03 of 2002 under section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is devoid of

merit and the same is dismissed on contest. Issue framed is thus decided against the workman.

28.

The other fact of the dispute is whether the Order of Dismissal dated 09/16.01.2004 of Balmukund Sharma

from his service during pendency of the Industrial Dispute, based upon the outcome of Domestic Enquiry is legally

tenable. The workman was chargesheeted for his unauthorized absence from duty and misconduct due to willful

disobedience of the Order of Transfer passed by the higher Authority (Ext.W-12). He participated in the Enquiry

Proceeding and was found guilty of the charge (Ext.W-15). A second Show cause notice was issued by the Agent of

Dahibari Colliery (Ext.W-16). Balmukund Sharma replied to the second Show cause notice on 09.07.2003 (Ext.W-

17). The content of the reply to the second Show cause notice is found to be an expression of his belligerent conduct

that “absenting from duty is not a criminal act as it was a matter of forceful stoppage of work. That any action of the

Management detrimental to the interest of workman would compel him to knock the door of the court of law. Though

the claim of the workman for his regularisation to the post of Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III has been

decided in his favour, his unauthorized absence from duty on his own accord is unacceptable and unjustified. The

workman was appropriately found guilty of misconduct for disobedience of the order of higher authority and violation

of Standing Order. The Enquiry Officer in his report (Ext.W-15) found Balmukund Sharma guilty of both the charges.

In the instant case the Project Officer of Dahibari Colliery communicated his decision to dismiss Balmukund Sharma

from his service by his order dated 09/16.01.2004 (Ext.W-18).

29.

It appears to me that the Project Officer who passed the Order of Dismissal dated 09/16.01.2004 against the

workman is not the appointing authority of the charged employee. Therefore, according to clause 27.2.6 of the

Standing Order applicable to the workman, the Project Officer claiming to be the Disciplinary Authority is not the

competent Authority to dismiss the workman. Though the provision of section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 has been satisfied and an application has been made by the Project Officer, Dahibari Colliery, seeking

approval of Management’s decision of dismissal of Balmukund Sharma, same is found not tenable. The Letter of

Appointment of the workman was issued by the General Manager, Chanch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL (Ext.W-1)

but the Order of dismissal has been issued by the Project Officer and not by the appointing authority. Therefore, the

same cannot be approved. The issue is decided against the Management.

30.

Misconduct and unauthorized absence from duty has been duly proved against the delinquent workman.

Misconduct and insubordination of the workman writs large even in his reply to the second show cause notice. Instead

of expressing his repentance for his adamant conduct his response is defiant to his higher authority. The workman

only appears to be obsessed with the idea that he should have been regularised as a Lamp Issue Clerk and his transfer

to this existing post is done to victimise him. The mitigating circumstance of his subsequent regularisation and

aggravating circumstance of disobedience of order and absence from duty have been weighted but the misconduct tilts

the balance against the workman and makes him liable to some punishment lesser than dismissal from service.

31.

In exercise of the jurisdiction vested under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Tribunal if

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, may by its award, set aside the order of discharge or

dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any as it thinks fit or give such

other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal as the case may require.

32.

In case of LIC of India vs. R. Dhandapani; 2006 (108) FLR 953 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court

considering the purview of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 11-A of the Act opined that merely

because the Labour Court found that the penalty was disproportionate it could not interject with the penalty. The court

observed that while the Court under section 11-A of the Act would exercise such a jurisdiction it should not be open

to criticism that such jurisdiction tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence.

33.

In the case of Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation;

2014 (140) FLR 756 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“12 ………The Labour Court under section 11-A of the Act is concerned, the exercise of such poser will

always have to be made judicially and judiciously. Under the said provision, wide powers have been vested with

the Labour Court to set aside the punishment of discharge or dismissal and its place award any lesser

punishment. Therefore, high amount of care and caution should be exercised by the Labour Court while invoking the

said discretionary jurisdiction for replacing the punishment of discharge or dismissal. Such exercise of discretion will

have to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The past conduct of the workman herein may be derived from Ext.W-8 / Ext.M-8, a Memorandum of Settlement

dated 16.01.2001, which establish that on an earlier occasion Balmukund Sharma was found guilty for his

unauthorized absence from duty from 04.06.1999 to 02.09.1999 without information and he violated the provisions of

clause 26.1.1 and 26.1.15 of the Standing Order. On the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement his period of absence

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1133

was treated as dies-non and he was permitted to join his duty in the same post. The workman did not amend his

conduct but maintained a defiant and disobedient behavior in his workplace. He did not carry out the order of higher

Authority and refused to join his new place of posting on transfer assuming his rights. The charge frame against the

workman has been duly proved and an order of dismissal has been passed against him by the Project Officer, who is

not the Appointing Authority. Hence, the same is unacceptable and disapproved.

34.

In Reference case no. 44 of 1999 by Award dated 16.02.2017, the Management of Victoria West Colliery of

M/s. BCCL was directed to regularise the workman as Lamp Issue Clerk in Clerical Grade -III w.e.f. 03.01.1996 and

to refix his pay which indicates that the workman was not offered the benefit in time. He has remained jobless for

decades and ultimately crossed his age of superannuation. There is no evidence on record to establish that he had

worked for gain at any other place for his livelihood and upkeeping of his family. The Employer who provided the

employment to the workman is equally entitled to ensure that the employee maintained utmost discipline in the

establishment and duly complied the rule and regularisation applicable to the establishment and in the case of proven

misconduct any order of punishment by way of dismissal should be interfered only on exercise of extreme care and

caution. In this case the order for regularisation was passed subsequent to the order of dismissal. In order to give

effect to the order of regularisation passed on 16.02.2017 it would be presumed that the order of dismissal dated

09/16.01.2004 had no effect.

35.

In the case of Strawboard Manufacturing Co. vs. Gobind; 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 618, while dealing with

the contention that if the employer dismisses or discharges a workman and then applies for approval of the action

taken and the Tribunal refuses to approve the action, the workman would be left with no remedy as there is no

provision for reinstatement in section 33(2), it is held that:

“If the tribunal does not approve of the action taken by the employer, the result would be that the action

taken by him would fall and thereupon the workman would be deemed never to have been dismissed or discharged

and would remain in the service of the employer.”

Since a subsequent order of regularisation has been passed, it is to be presumed that the regularisation will have a

cumulative effect and not for a brief period till the order of dismissal.

36.

In light of my above findings, I hold that the order of dismissal of Balmukund Sharma from service passed

by the Management of M/s. BCCL is set aside. This issue in Complaint No. 01 of 2004 is accordingly decided in

favour of the workman, against the Management of M/s. BCCL. On evaluation of the entire evidence on record and

the admitted facts, I hold that the workman having been found guilty of misconduct for disobedience and

unauthorized absence form duty cannot reap the entire benefit of employment for the period he has not rendered any

service to the Employer Company. Therefore, I hold that it would be just, proper and adequate to pay only 30% (thirty

percent) of the wages due to Balmukund Sharma which would accrue in his favour due to his regularisation to the

post of Lamp Issue Clerk, except the period treated as dies-non in the earlier Memorandum of Settlement dated

16.01.2001. The workman herein shall be entitled to his usual retiral dues, if any. 30% (thirty percent) of wages as

stated above and the retiral dues shall be paid within two months from the date of Notification of the Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

An Award be drawn up in favour of the workman, Balmukund Sharma, in terms of the above findings. Let

copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi

for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 583.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मानेकिॉ केंद्र, खैबर लाइन्स दिल्ली छावनी,आमी बेस, नई दिल्ली ; सनिाइन एंटरप्राइिेि, संत नगर,ईस्ट्ट ऑफ

कैलाि ,नई दिल्ली ; ईएसएफ जसक्योररटीि, रॉयल टॉवर, जिप्रा सनजसटी, इंदिरापुरम, गाजियाबाि,, के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जवक्रम ससंि, कामगार , के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-

श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 170/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित

करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.03.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-42012/15/2020 –vkbZ- vkj- (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 170/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Manekshaw Centre, Khyber Lines Delhi Cantonment, Army Base, New Delhi ; Sunshine Enterprises, Sant Nagar,

East Of Kailash , New Delhi ; ESF Securitas, Royal Tower, Shipra Suncity, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, and Shri.

Vikram Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

31.03.2023.

[No. L-42012/15/2020 – IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY

ID.NO. 170/2020

Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar,

Through Shramjivi Vikas Union,

Branch C-152, Gali No. 36, Mahavir Enclave,

Part-3, New Delhi-110055.

…. Workman

Versus

Manekshaw Centre,

Khyber Lines Delhi Cantonment,

Army Base, New Delhi-110010.

Sunshine Enterprises,

49, Ground Floor, Sant Nagar ,

East Of Kailash , New Delhi-110065.

ESF Securitas,

Shop no. RTF-12, Royal Tower, Shipra Suncity,

Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201014.

….Managements.

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide reference

No. L-42012/15/2020 IR(DU) New Delhi dated 15.09.2020 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 demand of the workman Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar as raised

through Shramjivi Vikas Union vide letter dated 07.09.2017 that his services have been

terminated w.e.f 17.06.2017 by the management of M/s Sunshine enterprises and if yes, to what

relief is he entitled and what other directions , if any, are necessary in this regard?”

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 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1135

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, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 584.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.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;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 64/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/339/2005-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/04/2023

[No. L-22012/339/2005 –IR(CM-II))]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 64 OF 2006

PARTIES: Ramkrit Bhuia

Vs.

Management of Bahula Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.03.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-

22012/339/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 05.09.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman

for adjudication by this Tribunal.

1136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Ramkrit Bhuia, UG Loader, U.M. No. 525527

w.e.f. 21.7.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/339/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 05.09.2006 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 64 of 2006 was registered on 25.09.2006

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives and submit their written statements.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Management of Bahula Colliery, Kenda Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited. The case was fixed up on 17.02.2023 for evidence of workman witness. On repeated calls

at 11.30 AM, Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative appearing for the workman was not found available.

3. In course of proceeding Ramkrit Bhuia died and his legal heirs were substituted by order dated 24.08.2016.

Several dates were fixed for evidence of the dependent of workman who filed affidavit-in-chief but failed to appear to

face cross-examination.

4. In such view of matter and long pendency of case for seventeen years, I do not find any reason for further

accommodation to parties who are not attending the Tribunal. Under such circumstance the reference case is

dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 585.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार एडीिी प्रिासन और समन्वय (सेना), क्यूएमिी िाखा, एमओडी (सेना) का एकीकृत मुख्यालय, नई दिल्ली;

प्रबंिक, समूि -2 सुरक्षा सेवाएं, उत्तम नगर, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जवक्रम ससंि, कामगार ,

के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं.

115/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

31.03.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[l-a ,y-42025-07-2023-71-vkbZ- vkj- (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 115/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The ADG Adm. & Coord (Army),QMG Branch , integrated HQ of MOD (Army) , New Delhi ;The Manager, Group-

2 Security Services, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, and Shri. Vikram Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.03.2023.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-71– IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1137

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 115/2021

Date of Passing Award- 14^th March,2023

Between:

Shri. Vikram Singh, S/o Sh. Banwari Lal,

R/o B-601, Gautampuri, Phase-II, Badarpur,

New Delhi-110076.

….Workman

Versus

1. The ADG Adm. & Coord (Army),

Office of the Addl. Dte. Adm. Coord,

QMG Branch Room No. S-5, integrated HQ of MOD (Army)

New Delhi- 110011.

2. The Manager, Group-2 Security Services,

C-59,Patel Garden Kakrola Marg,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-

….Managements.

Appearances:-

Sh Ratan Das, A/R for the Claimant.

None for the managements

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying a

direction to the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other consequential

benefits.

As per the claim statement the claimant Vikram Singh, was working as a Supervisor of House Keeping under

the mgt. no. 2 from 26.04.2016 to 26.07.2017 and was deputed to work in the Army post building. When he was

discharging his duty to the satisfaction of the employer, suddenly, the mgt. no. 1 and mgt. no. 2 terminated his service

with effect from 26.07.2017. At the time of termination, neither the seniority list was displayed nor any notice of

termination, termination compensation or notice pay was given. The action of the mgt. was in gross violation of the

provisions of the ID Act. All his requests for reinstatement into service were refused by the mgt. Finding no other way

he raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where steps were taken for conciliation. But the conciliation

failed and the claimant filed the claim petition before this tribunal.

Notice was sent to both the mgts. but none appeared on behalf of the mgts. When the matter was listed for

filing of w/s by the mgt. the mgt. no. 1 filed w/s denying the claim made by the claimant. At that juncture, the

claimant being physically present made a statement that the mgt. no. 2 has settled the dispute with him and he has

received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the said mgt. no. 2 by cheque no. 819596 dt. 06.08.2022 drawn from Canada

Bank dated 11.08.2022. Hence, he has no claim surviving against both the respondents.

In view of the said statement of the claimant and the photocopy of the cheque filed in this record though this

no dispute award is being passed. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The application filed u/s 2 A be and the same is dismissed as the claimant has no dispute against the

Respondent.

1138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHNATY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 586.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, भारत नगर, गाजियाबाि (यूपी); मिासजचव, भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स

कमवचारी संघ, भारत नगर, गाजियाबाि (उ.प्र.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स

वकवसव यूजनयन, भारत नगर,गाजियाबाि (यूपी), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम

न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 143/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै

िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.03.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-14011/03/2012-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 143/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bharat Nager, Ghaziabad (U.P) ;The General Secretary, Bharat

Electronics Employees Union, Bharat Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P), and The General Secretary, Bharat Electronics

Workers Union, Bharat Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 31.03.2023.

[No. L-14011/03/2012– IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 143/2012

Date of Passing Award- 24^th March,2023.

Between:

The General Secretary,

Bharat Electronics Workers Union,

C/o Bharat Nagar,

Ghaziabad (U.P)-201008

…..Claimant

Versus

The General Manager,

Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Bharat Nager,

Ghaziabad (U.P)-201008

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1139

The General Secretary,

Bharat Electronics Employees Union,

Bharat Nagar,

Ghaziabad (U.P)-201008

….Managements

Appearances:-

Claimant in person

SH. Kamal Kant Tyagi, Ld.A/R for the management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of(i) The General Manager, Bharat Electronics Ltd. Bharat Nager, ,(ii) The

General Secretary, Bharat Electronics Employees Union, Bharat Nagar ,and its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-

14011/03/2012(IR(DU) dated 05/10/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect’;

“Whether the action of management of Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad, for not

allowing encashment of annual leave (is as being done in other units of BEL) amounts to a

violation of section 9 (A) of the ID Act, 1947 is unjustified? If so, what relief the workmen

are entitled to?”

A reference was received from the appropriate Govt. to adjudicate on the demand of three separate

employees union of Bharat Electronics Ltd, Ghaziabad for payment of PPI for their excellent performance in stead of

very good to the non executive workmen for the year 2011-2012 and to give a finding if the said demand is justified.

The unions filed their claim statement separately. But the common stand taken is that the claimants are the

members of different unions, recognized by the management. The management is a public sector undertaking owned

by the Govt. of India. The persons employed by the management are the employees of the company and their service

conditions are regulated by the various enactments applicable to the management and some settlements arrived

between the management and the employees union. It is also governed under the Bharat Electronics Standing Order

updated till December 2007. The BEL is having altogether nine units functioning across India and the Head Office is

located in Bengaluru. The head office and the units functioning at different places are having their own regulations

governing the service condition of the employees, which by and large is the same. The management is engaged in

production and manufacturing of different delicate electronic equipments and articles to cater the need of the defence

establishments.

In passage of time many employees remained out of the purview of the Bonus Act and thus became deprived

of the incentive in form of Bonus. Series of meetings were held between the management and the representatives of

the union to resolve the issue and ensure fair distribution of the profit among the workers in form of incentives.

Resultantly a settlement was arrived and a memorandum of settlement dt 03/11/2010 was signed for payment of

incentives and a plant performance incentive (PPI) was prepared for the period of three years i.e from 2009 to 2012. It

was decided that the non executive employees existing from the date of coverage of the establishment under the

Bonus Act, but not getting the bonus shall be paid PPI .under the scheme the method of calculation of the incentive

and the manner of payment was envisaged. As per the prevailing practice, after closure of the financial year, the

representatives of the unions were called on 02/04/2012 and congratulated for the outstanding performance of the

unit. Sweets were distributed and it was decided that each non executive worker entitled to PPI shall get Rs 45,100/-

though announced payment was delayed and the unions made repeated demand for the same. The corporate office by

letter dt 06.09.2012, formally communicated about the PPI payable for the year 2011-2012 in which the performance

of Ghaziabad unit was down graded and the PPI payable for 2011-2012 was declared to be 35330/- the union

immediately protested by submitting a written memorandum. But the Bank unilaterally transferred the amount to the

accounts of the eligible employees, which was complained off against the Bank. However the Management did not

buzz from their anti labour activities. Finding no other way out the unions raised a dispute before the labour

commissioner. For the failure in the conciliation proceeding the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication

in terms of the reference.

Being noticed the management appeared and filed written statement refuting the stand taken by the claimant.

It has been pleaded that PPI for the period 2009-2010,2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are strictly payable strictly in

accordance to the terms of settlement dt 03.11.2010. Following the same the PPI to all the eligible employees was

paid for the period 2011-2012. The settlement dt 03.11.2010 was for full and final settlement of the demand made for

1140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the PPI by the unions. After expiry of the settlement dt 03.11.2010, a fresh settlement dt 05.09.2014 was announced

fro the period 2013-2014,2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and the PPI has been paid. The claim thus filed is untenable since

no dispute relating to the amount was raised before accepting the PPI for the period 2013-2014. Hence the

management pleaded for rejection of the claim.

On the rival pleadings the following issues were framed by order dt 11.04.2017.

ISSUES

1- Whether the demand of the unions of Bharat Electronics Ltd , Ghaziabad for payment of PPI for their

excellent performance instead of very good for the non execution for the workmen for the year 2011-2012 is

just and fair? If so effect.

2- If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to.

The claimants thereafter were called upon to adduce evidence in support of their claim. Several opportunities were

allowed for the purpose and for non appearance of the claimants fresh notices were also issued. Despite that when the

claimants did not turn up, the opportunity for adducing evidence was closed. Thereafter the management was called

upon to adduce evidence. But there being no evidence adduced by the claimants to discharge the burden of proof, the

management expressed that no evidence by the management shall be adduced. Hence evidence was closed, argument

was heard being advanced by the management.

During argument the learned AR for the management submitted that the burden of proof being on the

claimant, they opted not to adduce evidence. Whereas the stand taken in the claim petition has not been substantiated

the stand taken by the management stands un rebutted. Hence the claim be decided against the claimants.

On hearing the argument advanced by the management it is held that the claim advanced by the claimants has

not been established. Hence a no dispute award is to be passed. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The reference be, and the same is answered against the claimants. The claim having not been established,

this no dispute award is passed.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 587.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार आयुि, दिल्ली नगर जनगम (एमसीडी),जसजवक सेंटर, कमला माकेट,नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और मिासजचव, नगर कमवचारी संघ, अग्रवाल भवन, िी.टी. रोड, तीस ििारी, दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संिभव संख्या 131/2012) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.03.2023 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[l-a ,y-42012/45/2012-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 131/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),Civic Centre, Kamla Market, New Delhi, and The

General Secretary, Muncipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.03.2023.

[No. L-42012/45/2012– IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1141

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 131/2012

Date of Passing Award- 28^thMarch,2023.

Between:

The General Secretary.

Muncipal Employees Union,

Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054

…..Claimant

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),

Civic Centre, Kamla Market,

New Delhi- 110002

….Managements

Appearances:-

Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal, Ld. A/R for the Workman.

Sh. Harbansh Kaushal, Ld. A/R for the Management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of (i) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD and its

workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42012/45/2012(IR(DU) dated 09/08/2012 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect’;

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in not

promoting Sh. Surendra Pal Singh S/o Sh. Raj Pal Singh from the post of Malaria Beldar to the

post of Asstt. Malaria Inspector and payment of difference thereof w.e.f. the date his junior Sh.

Prem Singh S/o Sh. Girwar Singh get promoted w.e.f. 12.03.1991 is justified or not? If not what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

As stated in the claim petition, the workman Surrender Pal had joined the management MCD as a Malaria

Beldar in it’s anti malaria Dept on 01.06.1984 and continued to work as such till 01.10.1985, when his service was

illegally terminated,. Being aggrieved the claimant work man had raised an Industrial Dispute , which was registered

as ID No 636/1992. The Labour court by Award dt 13/12/2002, held the order of termination by the management

illegal. But no order for reinstatement or back wages was passed in that order as the labour court observed that the

workman has already been reinstated by the order of the Hon’ble H C in connection with another matter. The claimant

workman challenged the said award by filing WPC No 12827/2005. The Hon’ble HC of Delhi, in the said WPC, by

order dt 28/10/2005, directed that the claimant shall be paid 25% of the back wages w. e. f. the date of his termination

within six weeks of the date of the order. The said order was challenged by MCD in LPA No 319/2006. But the LPA

was dismissed by order dt 09/11/2006. In the said order the Hon’ble court gave a direction to the management to

reinstate in service on or before 15.12.2006, if not already been reinstated.

In compliance of the said direction of the Hon’ble court, the workman was assigned duty w. e. f. 15.12.2006

and back wages from the date of termination on 01/10/1985 to date of reinstatement on 14.12.2006 was paid @25%

as directed by the Hon’ble court. An order to that effect was passed by the management on 15.12.2006. Thus the

continuity of the service of the claimant was maintained by the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and

there was no break in his service.

The post of Assistant Malaria Inspector is the next promotional post in the hierarchy of the Malaria Beldars

and carries a much higher pay scale than of Malaria Beldar. In the year 1991, one Shri Prem Singh, s/o Shri Girwar

Singh, who was junior to the claimant being appointed on 02.04.1988, was given promotion to the post of Asst

Malaria Inspector by office order dt 08.03.1991. for the illegal termination of his service in the year 1985, he was

1142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

deprived of the said promotion in spite of having the eligibility. After his reinstatement with continuity by the order of

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, he claimed for promotion and served a demand notice dt 14/06/2010 in this regard,

which was duly received by the Management. But his grievance was not redressed. Hence, he raised an Industrial

Dispute before the conciliation officer, which ended in failure for the non co operation of the management and the

appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication in terms of the reference.

Management appeared and filed written statement stating that the workman had never served any demand

notice on the management stating that an Industrial Dispute exists between the parties. On that ground and for want of

espousal, the claim is not maintainable. It has further been pleaded that the claim is also not maintainable as the

claimant does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Asst Malaria Inspector as provided under the

Recruitment Rules and promotional Regulations for the post of Asst Malaria Inspector. The claimant as admitted by

him was appointed as Malaria Beldar in the year 1984 and worked for only 58 days i.e from 22/06/1984 to Nov 1984.

Thereafter he worked with the management for 140 days i.e from April 1985 to Sept 1985. The workman was

engaged as a seasonal Maleria Beldar for 4-6 months during the Transmission season only and was never appointed as

a regular employee qualifying for the promotion to the post of Asst Malaria Inspector. The management has denied

that a person junior to the workman was promoted w. e. f.13.03.1991. It has been explained that Prem Singh the

person named by the claimant workman was a regular seasonal Malaria Beldar and got promotion to the post of Asst

Malaria Inspector on 12 03. 1991, where as the claimant was regularized in service only in the year 2006 as per court

order. After that he was considered for promotion to the post of Superior Field Worker and then Asst Malaria

Inspector in due course. He will be promoted as the Asst Malaria Inspector in due course on fulfilling the requisite

qualification as provided under the existing Recruitment Rules. Hence management has prayed for dismissal of the

claim.

The claimant filed rejoinder that Industrial Dispute was properly espoused and a copy of the espousal

proceeding has been filed. It has been further stated that the workman was never appointed as temporary seasonal

Malaria Beldar. For the illegal termination of his service there was a break in service which was later on regularized

by the order of the Hon’ble High Court. For no fault on his part, he was deprived of the promotion. He has denied the

stand of the management that the work man is required to be promoted as a SFW first and then to the post of Asst

Malaria Inspector.

On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

1- whether the action of the Management of MCD in not promoting Surender Pal Singh from the post of

Malaria Beldar to the post of Asst Malaria Inspector and payment of the difference thereof w. e. f. the date

his junior Prem Singh was promoted i.e from 12.03.1991 is justified or not. If so effect.

2- To what relief the workman is entitled to and effect.

The claimant examined himself as WW1 and proved the documents marked in a series of Ext WW1/1 to

WW1/25. The Gen Secretary of the Union of which the claimant is a member has been examined as WW2. He has

proved the espousal by filing the document to that effect already marked as WW1/15.

On behalf of the management, the Deputy Health Officer Dr Ajay Kumar testified as MW 1. He also proved

certain documents marked in a series of MW1/1 to MW1/3.

During course f argument the learned AR for the management submitted that the claim advanced by the

claimant for promotion citing the case of Prem Singh is baseless as both of them do not stand in the same footing.

More over the claimant was appointed as a regular employee in the year 2006, by the order of the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi. Thus he is to be governed as per the recruitment Rule in vogue then. He also argued that the claim is not

maintainable for want of espousal and the claim has become infractuous as the claimant has already been promoted to

the post of Asst Malaria Inspector which he accepted without any objection. The counter argument of the AR for the

claimant is that the management being the employer, is in possession of all the relevant papers and the recruitment

Rules and circular. The management, thus has to prove that the claimant was not appointed in the year 1985 on

regular basis or he was a seasonal temporary Malaria Beldar and was made regular in the year 2006, for the order of

the Hon’ble High Court. Not only that the management has to prove that Prem Singh was a permanent seasonal

Beldar appointed in 1988. He also argued that the evidence adduced by the claimant properly proves his claim. But

management has failed to prove the stand taken in the WS.

Be it stated here that no issue has been framed on the maintainability of the proceeding on absence of

espousal. On the contrary the claimant by examining WW2 and producing the document Ext WW1/15, has proved the

espousal for raising the Industrial Dispute. Hence the only point that remains for decision is if the claim advanced by

the claimant for his promotion with retrospective effect with consequential benefits is maintainable or not.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1143

FINDINGS

The claimant has stated that he was appointed as a Malaria Beldar in the management on 01/06/1984 and his

service was terminated illegally on 01.10.1985. His termination was held to be illegal by the award of the labour court

passed in ID No 636/1992. But for the order passed by the Hon’ble HC of Delhi, he was reinstated in to service on

15.12.2006 and 25%of the back wage was given to him as arrear from the date of termination i.e 01/10/1985 to

14.12.2006. The claimant while deposing as WW1 has reiterated the same. It is also admitted that by the

management that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble H C in WPC No 12827/2005, the claimant was

reinstated to service on 15.12 2006 with 25% back wage s from the date of termination.

The claimant has asserted that the termination was held illegal and the management allowed him continuity

of service from the date of the said illegal termination by allowing 25%back wages as directed by the HC. Hence he is

entitled to all other consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Asst Malaria Inspector from the date on

which his junior Prem Singh was promoted. The management has denied this assertion of the claimant on the ground

that Prem Singh was not junior to the claimant as Prem Singh was appointed as a regular beldar, where as the

claimant was appointed as a temporary seasonal malaria beldar. The witness Dr. Ajay Kumar examined by the

management has stated that the claimant does not stand on same footing with Prem Singh appointed as a regular

Malaria Beldar. This statement of the witness stands contrary to the pleading in the WS where management has

admitted that Prem Singh was appointed as a regular seasonal malaria beldar. The witness has tried to draw a line

between the claimant and Prem Singh by saying that the claimant was a seasonal Malaria Beldar and Prem Singh was

a regular seasonal malaria beldar. It has not been explained by the management what is the difference between

seasonal Malaria Beldar and regular seasonal Malaria Beldar, when the word seasonal refers to the work done during

a particular season and a person engaged for seasonal work, how can be treated as a regular employee.

On the contrary, the claimant, while deposing as a witness has filed the photocopy of the office order of the

Management dt 11/05/1988 marked as Ext WW1/9, which is the appointment order of Prem Singh on 11/05/1988 as

the Malaria Beldar on temporary basis. The management has admitted that the claimant was appointed as temporary

Malaria Beldar on 01/06/1984 and he was granted back wages from 01/10/1985 to 14/12 2006 and reinstated in to

service on 15.12.2006, which means the claimant was senior to Prem Singh on the basis of the date of appointment

and his service continuity was maintained by the order of the court, though he was not in service for some time on

account of his illegal termination. The other document filed by the claimant as Ext WW1/10 and WW1/12, which are

the office order of the management giving promotion to Prem Singh and several others on 08/03/1991 from Malaria

Beldar to Asst Malaria Inspector. WW1/11 is the joining letter dt 12 .03. 1991 of Prem Singh.

The management while explaining the situation has stated that for promotion to the post of Asst Malaria

Inspector the requisite qualification is High School Certificate pass and Sanitary Inspector Diploma. The claimant

was not possessing the requisite qualification. Hence he was not considered. MW1 who is the Deputy Health Officer

of the Management has stated during cross examination that the claimant has been promoted to the post of Asst

Malaria Inspector on 10/08/2017, when he acquired the requisite qualification. To support his contention, the copy of

the Asst Malaria Inspector Recruitment Regulation 2009, which came in to force on 16 th Feb 2010 has been filed as

Ext Mw 1/2. The witness added that for filling up the posts, 30% shall be considered from the feeder cadre and the

persons to be considered are the SFW worked for 11 years continuously in the grade pay of 800/- hence no illegality

was meted out to the claimant.

But on behalf of the claimant argument was advanced that in the year 1991 when the junior of the claimant

was promoted the regulation of 2009 was not in force and as per the earlier regulation, there was no prescribed

qualification for the promotion to the post of Asst Malaria Inspector. The old regulation which was in force in the

year 1991 has been filed by the claimant. As per the said notification dt 12.08.1985, which is with regard to the

Recruitment and promotion to the post of Asst Malaria Inspector, no educational qualification has been prescribed for

the in service candidates, where as matriculation pass was the requisite qualification for direct recruitment.

On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties, it is held that, had the claimant

not been illegally terminated in the year 1985, he would have been considered for promotion in the year 1991, when

the junior to him Prem Singh was promoted on 13.03.1991 as both the claimant and Prem Singh stand in the same

footing. It is a fact to be noticed that the promotion order of Prem Singh marked as WW1/12, nowhere mentions the

qualification of the persons promoted as the same was not a required criterion as per the Regulation for Promotion

and Recruitment of Asst Malaria Inspector, notified on 12.08.1985. The Regulation of 2009 is not applicable to the

claimant, as his service continuity was maintained from 1985 by the order of the High Court and he is eligible for

promotion since 1991, but for the illegal termination in the year 1985. The stand of the management that the

regulation 2009 is applicable to the claimant and he was ignored for lack of requisite qualification is not acceptable.

Hence ordered.

1144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant. It is held that the decision of the

management in not promoting the claimant Sh. Surender Pal Singh S/O Rajpal Singh to the post of Asst Malaria

Inspector is illegal.it is directed that the management shall give promotion to the claimant to the post of Asst Malaria

Inspector i.e. the date 12.03.1991, when his junior Sh. Prem Singh was promoted as Asst Malaria Inspector and grant

him the financial and all other service benefits attached to that post from the date of promotion. Since the claimant has

been given promotion as SFW and Asst Malaria Inspector during the intervening period, the financial benefits

allowed to him for such promotion shall be adjusted towards the financial benefits he is entitled to on account of

promotion w. e. f. 12.03.1991. this direction shall be carried out by the management within three months from the

date of publication of the award, failing which the financial benefit , the claimant is entitled to shall carry interest @

6% from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHNATY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 588.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj सिारा एयरलाइंस जलजमटेड 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;] नं. 1. मुंबई ds iapkV

(संिभव संख्या सीिीआईटी-1/34/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-04-2023 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y- 11012/17/2013-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. REFRENCE No.CGIT- 1/34/2013) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,No.1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Sahara Airlins Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/04/2023.

[No. L-11012/17/2013 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1

MUMBAI

Present

Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-1/34 OF 2013

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Sahara Airlines Ltd.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1145

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party no.1 Management:

Absent.

For the second party workman

Absent.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 08th day of September, 2022

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order dated 23.7.2013 passed 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. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

Whether the management of M/s Sahara Ailines Ltd. And M/s/ Sahara Indian Commercial Corporation

Ltd., has contravened Section 2(ra) of clause 1.5(a)(b) of the Fifth Schedule of I.D.Act, by not allowing the

applicant to join either at his transferred place or at his born place of appointment? 2) If so whether the

case of workman is fit for reinstatement in the services of M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. With all

consequential benefits with retrospective effect from 7.6.2007?”

By the order dated 23.12.2013, notices were directed to be issued to the parties. Accordingly, notices were

issued to the parties by Registered Post AD.

From the Perusal of the record, it appears that notices addressed to the first party/Management Nos.1, 2 and 3

were sent at their respective addresses as shown in the Order of Reference. Notice sent to the first party/Management

No.2 by Registered Post AD has been received back unserved with the postal remark ‘left’. As regards notices sent to

the first party/Management No.1 and the first party Management No.3 at their Lucknow address by Registered Post

AD, neither undelivered postal envelope nor acknowledgement card has been received back. Perusal of the record

further reveals that Notices sent to the first party managements again and again remained unserved. Mr.M.B.Anchan

learned counsel for the workman appeared on behalf of the workman and submitted before the Tribunal on 14.02.2017

that the first parties are not receiving the notice. Both parties remained absent before this Tribunal 10.7.2018 till date.

Statement of claim has been filed by the workman which is on record but no written statements has been filed.

The case is taken up today. Both parties are absent.

No written statement has been filed on behalf of the first party managements. By order sheet dated 20.7.2022,

this Tribunal directed that the proceedings be held ex parte. It is further noted that the case was fixed for 01.9.2022 for

evidence to be adduced by the claimant workman and it was made clear that if the claimant if would not adduce

evidence on the next date the hearing of the matter shall be closed and no claim award shall be passed. Both the

parties were absent on 01.9.2022 and the matter was fixed on 7.9.2022.

On 7.9.2022, when the matter was taken up for hearing both the parties were absent. Therefore, No dispute

award is being passed.

Award is passed accordingly.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 589.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार प्रबंि जनिेिक, टेंटकल सेकुरे स्ट्क्वायर स्ट्क्वॉड प्रा. जलजमटेड नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; मिाप्रबंिक, मैससव। एनएलसी इंजडया

जलजमटेड टाउनजिप एडजमजनस्ट्रेिन, नेवेली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री आर सुरेन्द्रनाथ, कामगार, के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय - चेन्नई के पंचाट(संिभव सं. 67/2022) को

िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 10.04.2022

को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-73-आई.आर. (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The

Managing Director, Tentacle Sequre Square Squads Pvt. Ltd. Nolambur, Chennai ; The General Manager, M/s. NLC

India Limited Township Administration, Neyveli, and Shri R. Surendranath, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.04.2022.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-73-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 01.03.2023

Sh. R. Surendranath

S/o M. Rajendran

No. 17/65, Indra Nagar

Parvathipuram Vadalur

Tamilnadu-607303No.

….1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director

Tentacle Sequre Square Squads Pvt. Ltd.

MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3^rd Main Road

Nolambur, Chennai 600 037

….First Respondent

2. The General Manager

M/s. NLC India Limited

Township Administration

Neyveli – 607 801

…Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the Respondents 1 to 3

M/s. N. Nithianandam

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.

01/11/2021/PDY/Adj/A1 dated 01.07.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the claim of Sh. Surendranath alleging termination of employment w.e.f.

18.08.2020 by the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the above reference dtd. 01.07.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was

registered as ID No. 67/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to

29.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further

adjournments to 04.11.2022 and 03.10.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent files

V.Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 01.07.2022 to

this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is

therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then for the interest of justice, the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1147

Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 15.12.2022. The Petitioner

did not turn up nor any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was

not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. However for the interest of justice, the case is once again listed to

28.03.2022 for appearance / claim statement. On that day, on repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. The R2

was re-presented through counsel. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to

file claim statement and documents.

In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which

would be wastage of the valuable time this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.

In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with

the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government as

there exist no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 590.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

जलजमटेड टाउनजिप एडजमजनस्ट्रेिन, नेवेली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री के. वेंकटेिन, कामगार, के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय - चेन्नई के पंचाट (संिभव सं. 49/2022) को

को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-74-आई.आर.(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The

Managing Director, Tentacle Sequre Square Squads Pvt. Ltd. Nolambur, Chennai ; The General Manager, M/s. NLC

India Limited Township Administration, Neyveli, and Shri K. Venkatesan, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.04.2022.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-74-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 01.03.2023

Sh. K. Venkatesan

S/o, L. Kannan

No. 267, Navalur Street

Block-21, Neyveli,

1148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Tamilnadu – 607807

…1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Managing Director

Tentacle Sequre Square Squads Pvt. Ltd.

MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3^rd Main Road

Nolambur, Chennai 600037

….First Respondent

2. The General Manager

M/s. NLC India Limited

Township Administration

Neyveli – 607801

….Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the Respondents 1 to 3

M/s. N. Nithianandam

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 1/36/2021/PDY/Adj/A1

dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the claim of Sh. K. Venkatesh alleging termination of employment w.e.f.

18.08.2020 by the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the above reference dtd. 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute

was registered as ID No. 49/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing

the case to 18.08.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up

resulting further adjournments to 13.08.2022, 03.10.2022 and 02.11.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up

whereas the Second Respondent files V.Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the

appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the

reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both

parties must have received the reference. Even then for the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again

directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 15.12.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up

nor any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not

furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the

Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.

In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date

which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.

In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to

proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the

Appropriate Government as there exist no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 591.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

जलजमटेड टाउनजिप एडजमजनस्ट्रेिन, नेवेली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री आर भारती रािन, कामगार, के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय - चेन्नई के पंचाट(संिभव संख्या 68/2022)

को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

10.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-72-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1149

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The

Managing Director, Tentacle Sequre Square Squads Pvt. Ltd. Nolambur, Chennai ; The General Manager, M/s. NLC

India Limited Township Administration, Neyveli, and Shri R. Bharathi Rajan, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10.04.2022.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-72-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 01.03.2023

Sh. R. Bharathi Rajan

S/o T. Ramalingam

No. 63-A, Natesan Nagar

Vadalur

Tamilnadu – 607 303

….1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

3. The Managing Director

Tentacle Sequre Square Squads Pvt. Ltd.

MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3^rd Main Road

Nolambur, Chennai 600 037

….First Respondent

4. The General Manager

M/s. NLC India Limited

Township Administration

Neyveli – 607 801

….Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the Respondents 1 to 3

M/s. N. Nithianandam

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 01/12/2021/PDY/Adj/A1

dated 01.07.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the claim of Sh. R. Bharathi Rajan alleging termination of employment w.e.f.

18.08.2020 by the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

On receipt of the above reference dtd. 01.07.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was

registered as ID No. 68/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to

29.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further

adjournments to 04.11.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent files V.Nama. It reveals

from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 01.07.2022 to this Tribunal for

adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well

presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then for the interest of justice, the Petitioner was

once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 15.12.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up

nor any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not furnished in

any manner by the Petitioner. However for the interest of justice, the case is once again listed to 28.03.2022 for

appearance / claim statement. On that day, on repeated calls, the Petitioner did not turn up. The R2 was re-presented

1150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

through counsel. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim

statement and documents.

In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which

would be wastage of the valuable time this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.

In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with

the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government as

there exist no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 592.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार प्रोपराइटर, जविय जसक्यूररटी सर्ववसेस, C/o अलामढी सीमेन स्ट्टेिन,एनडीडीआर, चेन्नई; मिाप्रबंिक, अलमिी

वीयव स्ट्टेिन, एनडीडीआर, चेन्नई, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, ऊथकोट्टई वट्टारा अमईपुरसरा मातरम,

पोिु थोजझलागवल संगम, पेररयापलायम ,जतरुवल्लुर, तजमलनाडु, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

न्यायाजिकरण सि श्रम न्यायालय - चेन्नई के पंचाट(संिभव संख्या 9/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 10.04.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/125/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The

Proprietor, Vijay Security Services, C/o Alamadhi Semen Station, NDDR, Chennai ;The General Manager, Alamadhi

Semen Station, NDDR, Cennai, and The General Secretary, OOthkottai Vattara Amaipursara Matrum, Podhu

Thozhilargal Sangam, Periapalayam, Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu, which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 10.04.2022.

[No. L-42011/125/2020-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COUORT

CHENNAI

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 02.03.2023

The General Secretary

OOthkottai Vattara Amaipursara Matrum

Podhu Thozhilargal Sangam

Grahapravesa Nagar, Periapalayam

Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu-601102

….1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Proprietor

Vijay Security Services

C/o Alamadhi Semen Station

NDDR, Chennai-600 040

….First Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1151

2. The General Manager

Alamadhi Semen Station

NDDR, Cennai-600 040

: Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the First Party/Petitioner Union :

M/s V. Ajoy Khose

For the First Respondent

M/s R. Jayaprakash

For the Second Respondent

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42011 /125

/2020[IR(DU)] dtd. 04.0.2021 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s Almaadhi Semen Station, Chennai (Principal

Employer) through M/s Vijay Security & Facility Services, Contractor in not giving

employment to 9 workers (List Attached) as raised by Uthukottai Vattra Amaippusara Aatrum

Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what reliefs are the workers

entitled to? What directions, if any, are necessary in this regard?”

On receipt of the above reference dtd. 04.01.2021 from the appropriate Government, the dispute

was registered as ID No. 9/2021 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the

case to 01.04.2021. Neither the General Secretary / Authorized Representative nor any adjourned for the

purpose intervening several adjournments (almost 7 adjournments till 20.01.2021). The Petitioner's Counsel’

filed V nama. Accordingly the Petitioner was directed to

File Claim Statement and the case was listed to 14.03.2021. The Petitioner did not turn up resulting

further 5 adjournments. The Petitioner, the General Secretary of the 1^st Party Union did not turn up. However,

without resorting to any coercive step against the Petitioner the Tribunal so-motto afforded more adjournments as

last chance fixing the case to 28.11.2022. The Petitioner did not turn up nor furnished Claim Statement in any

manner available to him. Even then the case was posted 30.11.2022. On that day neither the General Secretary

nor any A/R / Counsel appeared. The Claim Statement was not filed. The case was reserved for Final Order. It

would not be out of place to mention that Petitioner did not appear till the date nor filed any petition to file Claim

Statement.

It reveals that despite of many opportunities though afforded in favour of the Petitioner, no progress

was noticed in the ID case, simply because of non-appearance and non-compliance by the Petitioner. In the

circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose. The case was accordingly posted for

final order.

4. In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner has got no interest to

proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the

Appropriate Government as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 593.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार एलएसिी स्ट्काई िेफ (इंजडया) प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िेवनािल्ली, बंगलुरु के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वी

के नारायण स्ट्वामी, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर

के, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-25/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-32]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri V K Narayan Swamy, Bangalore which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-32]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 6^th JANUARY 2023

PRESENT :

Shri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer

ID. No. 25/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. V K Narayan Swamy,

No. 90, Sadanandanagar,

Temple Road, Indiranagar,

BANGALORE – 560 038.

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

Advocate for II Party : Mr. K R Anand

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the

Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited who is dismissed

from service vide order dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Party.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial

Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have signed voluntarily and

satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to accept the settlement.

Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter voluntarily and

prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both the parties.

Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms of the settlement is passed

accordingly. Transmit.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 594.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार एलएसिी स्ट्काई िेफ (इंजडया) प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िेवनािल्ली, बंगलुरु के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री

मुरली बी एम, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-23/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-31]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1153

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri Murali B M, Bangalore which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-31]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 6^th JANUARY 2023

PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

ID NO. 23/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. Murali B M,

No. 545, Church Road,

2^nd Cross, New Thippasandra,

BANGALORE – 560 075.

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

Advocate for II Party : Mr. K R Anand

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the

Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited who is dismissed

from service vide order dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Party.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial

Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have signed voluntarily and

satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to accept the settlement.

Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter voluntarily and

prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both the parties.

Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms of the settlement is passed

accordingly. Transmit.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 595.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सगायराि िी, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-22/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-30]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri Sagayaraj G, Bangalore which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-30]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 6^th JANUARY 2023

PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

ID NO. 22/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. Sagayaraj G,

No. 379 2/B,

Ground Floor,

Narayanappa Garden,

K Agrahara,

BANGALORE – 560 017.

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

Advocate for II Party : Mr. K R Anand

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the

Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited who is dismissed

from service vide order dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Party.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial

Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have signed voluntarily and

satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to accept the settlement.

Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter voluntarily and

prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both the parties.

Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms of the settlement is passed

accordingly. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 06.01.2023)

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 596.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

कंथराि बी, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के,

पंचाट(ररफरेन्स न.-21/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-29]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1155

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri Kantharaj B, Bangalore which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-29]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 6^th JANUARY 2023

PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

ID. NO. 21/2013

I Party

II Party

Sh. Kantharaj B,

S/o Bheemappa D,

No. 141, 7^th Cross,

Shabari nagar Road,

Ramakrishna Hegde Road,

BANGALORE – 560 045.

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

Advocate for II Party : Mr. K R Anand

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the

Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited who is dismissed

from service vide order dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Party.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial

Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have signed voluntarily and

satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to accept the settlement.

Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter voluntarily and

prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both the parties.

Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms of the settlement is passed

accordingly. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 06.01.2023)

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 597.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सुिाकर आर, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-20/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-28]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri Sudhakar R, Bangalore which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-28]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED : 6^th JANUARY 2023

PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

ID NO. 20/2014

I Party

II Party

Sh. Sudhakar R,

Hirandahalli,

Virgo Nagar Post,

BANGALORE – 560 049.

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

Advocate for II Party : Mr. K R Anand

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the

Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited who is dismissed

from service vide order dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Party.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial

Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have signed voluntarily and

satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to accept the settlement.

Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter voluntarily and

prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both the parties.

Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms of the settlement is passed

accordingly. Transmit.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 598.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

कृष्णा एम, बैंगलोर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर के,

पंचाट(ररफरेन्स न.-19/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ थाl

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-27]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1157

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd., Devanahalli, (Bengaluru) and Shri Krishna M, Bangalore which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-27]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE, CAMP COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 6^th JANUARY 2023

PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

ID NO. 19/2014

I Party

II Party

Sh. Krishna M,

C/o Sriramappa Building,

Virgo Nagar Post,

Rampura Village,

Bidarahalli Hobli,

BENGALURU – 560 049.

The Management of LSG Sky Chef (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Kempegowda International Airport, Devanahalli,

BENGALURU – 560 300.

Appearance

Advocate for I Party : Mr. Clifton D’Rozario

Advocate for II Party : Mr. K R Anand

AWARD

The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the

Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the LSG Sky Chef (India) Private Limited who is dismissed

from service vide order dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Party.

After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial

Dispute parties filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement wherein they have agreed that they have signed voluntarily and

satisfied with amount so received from the management and approached the tribunal to accept the settlement.

Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.

Perused the record, parties have filed Joint Memorandum of Settlement in the present matter voluntarily and

prayed to pass consent Award in terms of the settlement. The Settlement has been duly signed by both the parties.

Therefore, in view of the above settlement is allowed and the consent award in terms of the settlement is passed

accordingly. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 06.01.2023)

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 599.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससव िुगावपर स्ट्टील प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सिंिुस्ट्तान स्ट्टील वकवसव' यूजनयन (इंटक) के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के, पंचाट(ररफरेन्स न.-12/2017)

12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -26011/15/2017-IR(M)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

1158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s

Durgapur Steel Plant and Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. L-26011/15/2017-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 12 OF 2017

PARTIES: Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC)

Vs.

Management of M/s. Durgapur Steel Plant

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union.

For the Management:

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Iron and Steel.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

23.03.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-26011/15/2017-IR(M) dated 25.08.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of M/s. Durgapur Steel Plant and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur of imposing the water

charges and diet charges unilaterally is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-26011/15/2017-IR(M) dated 25.08.2017 from the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 12 of 2017 was registered on 13.09.2017

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, learned advocate for M/s. Durgapur Steel Plant appeared and filed a Xerox copy of

letter issued by the Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union dated 22.12.2022 addressed to the Chief General

Manager (P&A) and HRD, SAIL / DSP and ASP. On 10.03.2023 at 12.10 PM on repeated calls none appeared for the

workman who raised this dispute through Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC).

Initially a written statement was submitted on behalf of the workmen contending that they want protection of

existing benefits. Therefore, imposing water charges and diet charges by the Management of M/s. Durgapur Steel

Plant curtailed the existing benefits which cannot be permitted under the established laws. The Union relied upon

decision by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, passed in Writ Petition No. 1137/1999, in the case of Pradeep Kumar

Gupta vs P.O. Labour Court and Another, wherein it was observed that: “ Therefore, obviously a notice of change

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1159

was a must before introducing the change, otherwise it would be an illegal change. Any such illegal change invites a

penalty u/s 31(2) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Such a change which is punishable as a criminal offence would obviously be

an illegal change. It must be held that without anything more such an illegal change would be wholly ineffective.”

On perusal of the communication dated 22.12.2022 it appears to this Tribunal that the concerned union has

examined the issues involved in the above dispute and is now of the view that revision of water charges in the

Township and diet charges in DSP Main Hospital is not unreasonable. The dispute raised by the Union therefore does

not subsist. The concerned Union does not want to pursue the Reference Case No. 12 of 2017 pending before The

C.G.I.T. -cum- L.C., Asansol. Though no joint application has been filed by the Union and the Management of M/s.

Durgapur Steel Plant before this Tribunal regarding settlement of dispute, the workmen represented by Hindustan

Steel Workers’ Union, in letter dated 22.12.2022 addressed to the Chief General Manager (P&A) and HRD, SAIL /

DSP and ASP has foregone their claim and are not inclined to proceed further. Reference case is accordingly

dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 600.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947(1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार भारत एल्युमीजनयम कंपनी जलजमटेड एंड 2 अन्य के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और िे. के. नगर एल्युमीजनयम

वकवसव यूजनयन (इंटक) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के,

पंचाट(ररफरेन्स न.-04/2002) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. िेड-16025/03/2023-IR(M)-5]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Bharat Aluminium Company Limited and two others and J. K. Nagar Aluminium Workers Union (INTUC) which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/03/2023-IR(M)-5]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

COMPLAINT NO. 04 OF 2002

PARTIES: J. K. Nagar Aluminium Workers Union (INTUC).

Vs.

Management of Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. and two others.

1160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: General Secretary, J. K. Nagar Aluminum Workers Union (INTUC).

For the Management:

None.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.03.2023

AWARD

Instant Complaint under section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was filed by General Secretary, J.

K. Nagar Aluminium Workers Union (INTUC) against (1) M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., (2) General Manager

(In-charge), Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., and (3) Deputy Manager (Personnel), Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., praying

for restraining the opposite party from changing the service condition of the workers.

The case was fixed up on 20.02.2022 for appearance and hearing of argument. Notice was issued afresh to

complainant and the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 under registered post. On call none appeared for the parties.

General Secretary, J. K. Nagar Aluminum Workers Union (INTUC) who filed this complaint contending that

forty (40) canteen workers were working in the company continuously and uninterruptedly since their date of joining.

He raised an Industrial Dispute against illegal action of the Management of M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. by not

regularizing the service of canteen workers as permanent workers. During pendency of the Reference case No. 44 of

2000, it was alleged that the Management had taken a decision to stop the service of canteen workers w.e.f.

01.11.2002. It is further contended that the union by letter dated 20.10.2002 had prayed before the Management not to

change service condition of canteen workers but there was no response. In the instant Complaint, the union

representative has prayed for restraining M/s. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. from changing the service condition of

workers.

On perusal of record, it appears that none has taken steps for a considerable period, since 2007. In such view

of matter, Complaint under section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute

Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Complaint case. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi under section 33-A (b)

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 601.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार एयरपोटव अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; िजि आनंि जसक्योररटी एिेंसी; ४९२६, संिीप जमत्तल जसक्योररटी एिेंसी, नई

दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िगिीि प्रसाि पुत्र श्री दकिन लाल प्रसाि थ्रू इंजडयन नेिनल जमरग्रंट

वकवसव' यूजनयन, नई दिल्ली के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई

दिल्ली के, पंचाट(ररफरेन्स न.-161/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-35]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Airport Authority of India; Shakti Anand Security Agency; 4926, Sandeep Mittal Security Agency, New Delhi and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1161

Shri Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Kishan Lal Prasad Through Indian National Migrant Workers' Union, New Delhi which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-35]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present:

Smt. Pranita Mohanty,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 161/2021

Date of Passing Award- 13^th March,2023

Between:

Shri. Jagdish Prasad, S/o Sh. Kishan Lal Prasad,

R/o House no. 217, Devil Village, South Delhi-110062.

Through- Indian National Mirgrant Worker’s Union

1770/8, 3^rd Floor Govind Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji

New Delhi- 110019.

Workman

Versus

1. Airport Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003.

2. Shakti Anand Security Agency,

S-II, 2^nd Floor, Chamber-04, Plot No. 07

LSC Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3. 4926, Sandeep Mittal Security Agency,

01,281/1, Main Palam Vihar Road, Brijwasan,

New Delhi-11006.

Managements.

Appearances:-

Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Ld. A/R for the Claimant.

None for the management

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying

a direction to the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other

consequential benefits.

As per the claim statement on 02.07.2014 the claimant Jagdish Prasad, was recruited as a Security

Guard by Air Port Authority of India and posted at Safdarjung Airport New Delhi. His last drawn salary was

24,152/- per month. In order to deprive the claimant of his lawful rights the management no.1 showed him as

an employee of contractor i.e. management no. 2 and management no. 3, with whom management no.1 has

entered into a sham contract. Neither the management no. 1 is registered under the CLRA nor the so called

contractors are having licence for engagement of contract labour. Thus the contract between management no.

1, management no.2 and management no. 3 was sham. The claimant was discharging his duty sincerely but

the mgt., in violation of the provisions of ID Act illegally terminated his service since he was often

demanding equal pay for equal work, weekly holidays, leave salary, bonus, over time dues etc. Being

aggrieved by the illegal termination, the claimant served a demand notice on the mgt. But the mgt. did not

reply to his notice. Finding no other way the claimant raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation

officer for which a conciliation proceeding was initiated. For the adamant attitude of the mgt. the conciliation

failed and the claimant came of with the present application seeking the relief of reinstatement with all

consequential benefits and continuity of service.

1162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The mgts. though noticed did not appeared and thus, by order dated 14.12.2021 all the mgts. were

proceeded ex-parte.

The claimant examined himself as WW1 and produced the documents which have been marked in a

series of exhbt. WW1/1 to WW1/5. These documents include the salary details paid to the claimant on

different dates by mgt. no. 2 the photocopy of the bank pass book showing deposit of his salary by mgt. no.

2, photocopies of the cheques issued to the claimant by mgt. no.2. In addition to this, the claimant has also

filed the representation made by him to the mgt. no. 1 ventilating his grievance for illegal termination. In his

sworn testimony the claimant has stated that the mgt. while terminating this service had neither served the

notice of the termination nor paid termination compensation or notice pay. Thus there was gross violation of

the provisions of ID Act. It has also been stated that he had served for the mgt. no. 1 and there exists

employer and employee relationship between them. Hence the mgt. no. 1 is liable to pay the relief as prayed

by him as the principal employer.

This evidence of the claimant stands uncontroverted and unrebutted. During course of arguments

the ld. A/R for the claimant submitted that the claimant has successfully proved his relation as the employee

of mgt. no. 1 and circumstance clearly proves violation of section 25 F of the Id Act. Hence, the mgt. no. 1

be directed to reinstate the claimant into service. To support his contention he relied upon the case of Sachiv,

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sanawad vs. Mahendra Kumar 2004 LLR 405, and argued that when the

termination falls under the category of violation of Section 25 F of the Id Act, the workman is entitled to

reinstatement and full back wages.

As stated in the previous paragraph the oral and documentary evidence of the claimant has remained

unchallenged. But the said evidence only proves that the employment of the claimant was under mgt. no. 2

i.e. Shakti Anand Security Agency who was paying him salary. There is absolutely no evidence to believe

that the claimant was working under the supervision and control of mgt. no. 1. Hence, it is felt that the mgt.

no. 2 is liable to grant the relief to the claimant for the illegal termination of the service. Hence Orderd.

ORDER

The claim be and the same is allowed. It is held that the service of the claimant was illegally

terminated by mgt. no. 2 in gross violation of the provisions of Section 25 F and 25 G of the ID Act. For

such illegal termination the mgt. no. 2 is directed to reinstate the claimant into service with his last drawn

wage within one month from the date of publication of the awar5d and shall maintain continuity of his

service and grant him the full back wages from the date of termination of service that is from 01.10.2019 till

the reinstatement is effected. In addition to this the m2 that is Shakti Anand Security Agency shall also pay

25000/ to the claimant towards litigation expenses. This amount along with the back wages shall be paid to

the claimant without interest within the time stipulated as above, failing which the amount shall carry interest

at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section

17 of the ID act 1947.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल, 2023

का. आ. 602.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री ओम प्रकाि िोिी पुत्र पान िेव िोिी थ्रू इंजडयन नेिनल जमरग्रंट वकवसव'

यूजनयन, नई दिल्ली के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई दिल्ली के,

पंचाट(ररफरेन्स न.-159/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12.04.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-34]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th April, 2023

S.O. 602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 159/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Airport Authority of India; Shakti Anand Security Agency; 4926, Sandeep Mittal Security Agency, New Delhi and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 22, 2023/ वैिाख 2, 1945

1163

Shri Om Prakash Joshi S/o Pan Dev Joshi Through Indian National Migrant Workers' Union, New Delhi which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.04.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-34]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present:

Smt. Pranita Mohanty,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour

Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 159/2021

Date of Passing Award- 13^th March,2023

Between:

Shri. Om Prakash Joshi, S/o Sh. Pan Dev Joshi,

R/o M-1-625-A, Gali No-11, Asthal Mandir Road,

Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110080

Through- Indian National Mirgrant Worker’s Union

1770/8, 3^rd Floor Govind Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji

New Delhi- 110019.

Workman

Versus

1. Airport Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi-110003.

2. Shakti Anand Security Agency,

S-II, 2^nd Floor, Chamber-04, Plot No. 07

LSC Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3. 4926, Sandeep Mittal Security Agency,

01,281/1, Main Palam Vihar Road, Brijwasan,

New Delhi-11006.

Managements.

Appearances:-

Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Ld. A/R for the Claimant.

None for the management

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying

a direction to the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other

consequential benefits.

As per the claim statement on 02.07.2014 the claimant Om Prakash Joshi, was recruited as a

Security Guard by Air Port Authority of India and posted at Safdarjung Airport New Delhi. His last drawn

salary was 24,152/- per month. In order to deprive the claimant of his lawful rights the management no.1

showed him as an employee of contractor i.e. management no. 2 and management no. 3, with whom

management no.1 has entered into a sham contract. Neither the management no. 1 is registered under the

CLRA nor the so called contractors are having licence for engagement of contract labour. Thus the contract

between management no. 1, management no.2 and management no. 3 was sham. The claimant was

discharging his duty sincerely but the mgt., in violation of the provisions of ID Act illegally terminated his

service since he was often demanding equal pay for equal work, weekly holidays, leave salary, bonus, over

time dues etc. Being aggrieved by the illegal termination, the claimant served a demand notice on the mgt.

1164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 22, 2023/ VAISAKHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

But the mgt. did not reply to his notice. Finding no other way the claimant raised an industrial dispute before

the conciliation officer for which a conciliation proceeding was initiated. For the adamant attitude of the mgt.

the conciliation failed and the claimant came of with the present application seeking the relief of

reinstatement with all consequential benefits and continuity of service.