3510 GI/2023

(1975)

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. 24]

नई दिल् ली, िून 11—िून 17, 2023, िजनवार/ज् येष् ठ 21—ज् येष् ठ 27, 1945

No. 24]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 11—JUNE 17, 2023, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 21—JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् ठ सं्‍ या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(आर् िक कायि जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 936.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम(4) के अनुसरण में, जवत्त मंत्रालय, आर् िक कायि जवभाग के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन भारतीय प्रजतभूजत और

जवजनमय बोडि, ृजिमी प्रािेजिक कायािलय, सेबी भवन, ृंचवटी प्र म लेन, अिमिाबाि-380006, गुिरात जिसके

80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमिचारीवषंि ने हिंिी का कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िजैः

भारतीय प्रजतभूजत और जवजनमय बोडि,

ृजिमी प्रािेजिक कायािलय, सेबी भवन

अिमिाबाि-380006, गुिरात

[फा. सं. 11013/06/2020-हिंिी]

अृणाि भाटटया, सलािकार (प्रिा.)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23062023-246767

CG-DL-W-23062023-246767

1976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 936.—In pursuance of Sub-rule(4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby, notify the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Western

Regional Office, SEBI Bhavan, Panchvati 1^st Lane, Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat under the administrative control of

Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:

Securities and Exchange Board of India,

Western Regional Office, SEBI Bhavan Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat

[F. No. 11013/06/2020-Hindi]

APARNA BHATIA, Advisor (Admn.)

कार्मिक, लोक जिकायत त ा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 937.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृटठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जत्रृुरा राज् य सरकार, गषि जवभाग की

अजिसूचना सं. एफ.13(24)-ृीडी/15(ृाटि)/750, दिनांक 11.03.2022 सृटठत इसका िुजि ृत्र सं एफ.13(24)-

ृीडी/15(ृाटि), दिनांक 15.12.2022 के माध् यम से िारी स्मजत से ृजिम अगरतला ाना में भारतीय िण्ड संजिता,

1860 (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 420 और 34 के तित ििि अृराि सं. 164/2014, दिनांक 18.09.2014 से संबंजित

अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबि दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा

षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए

दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त जत्रृुरा राज् य में करती िज

[फा. सं. 228/13/2018- एवीडी-II (Vol.II)]/1]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023

S.O. 937.—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 Tripura, issued vide Notification No. F.13(24)-PD/15(Part)/750 dated 11.03.2022 r/w its Corrigendum

issued vide No. F.13(24)-PD/15(Part) dated 15.12.2022 of Home Department, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Tripura for investigation

into the offence(s) relating to West Agartala PS Case No.164/2014 dated 18.09.2014, under sections 420 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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. 228/13/2018-AVD-II (Vol. II)]/1]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1977

नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 938.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृटठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जत्रृुरा राज् य सरकार, गषि जवभाग की

अजिसूचना सं. एफ.13(24)-ृीडी/15(ृाटि)/750, दिनांक 11 माचि, 2022 त ा सं्‍या एफ.13(24)-ृीडी/15 (ृाटि)

(एल)/2869, दिनांक 12.09.2022 के माध्यम से िारी स्मजत से, जनम्नजलज त ताजलका में उजल्लज त मामलो से िुड़े

अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबि दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र

एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त जत्रृुरा राज्य में करती िजैः-

ताजलका

क्र.सं.

मामला सं., कानून की िारा एवं ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 और 34 के तित मामला सं. 27/2013, दिनांक

21.03.2013, कुमारघाट ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 420 के तित मामला सं. 105/2012, दिनांक 24.08.2012,

तेजलयामुरा ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406 और 420 के तित, मामला सं. 190/2014 दिनांक

29.10.2014, ृूवी अगरतला ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 506, 323 और 34 के तित मामला सं. 76/2012,

दिनांक 03.04.2012, ृजिमी अगरतला ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 405, 406, 409, 415, 417, 420, 120बी और 34 के तित

मामला सं. 83/2013, दिनांक 09.05.2013, ृूवी अगरतला ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 और 34 त ा टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 150/2013, दिनांक 24.05.2013, ृजिमी अगरतला ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406, 405 और 420 त ा टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 241/2014, दिनांक 10.10.2014, बेलोजनया ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406, 409, और 420 के तित मामला सं. 177/2013, दिनांक

11.05.2013, आर.के. ृुर ाना

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 और 120बी के तित मामला सं. 77/2012, दिनांक

24.09.2012, जिराजनया ाना

10.

भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 506 और 34 त ा टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

ृटरवर्िित िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 98/2013, दिनांक 25.05.2013, िमािनगर ाना

11.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420 एवं 409 के तित मामला सं. 49/2013, दिनांक

23.05.2013, कंचनृुर ाना

12.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406 एवं 420 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

ृटरवर्िित िारा 3 त ा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 120 बी एवं 34 के तित मामला सं.

272/2014, दिनांक 16.12.2014, बेलोजनया ाना

13.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406 एवं 420 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की िारा 3

के तित मामला सं. 91/2014, दिनांक 22/05/2014, सोनामुरा ाना

14.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 420 के तित मामला सं. 48/2012, दिनांक 01.06.2012, ोवई

ाना

15.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 403, 406 एवं 34 के तित मामला सं. 59/2012,

दिनांक 07.07.2012, ोवई ाना

1978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406 एवं 420 के तित मामला सं.108/2012, दिनांक

08.06.2012, जबिालगढ़ ाना

17.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406 एवं 420 के तित मामला सं. 22/2013, दिनांक

30.08.2013, ओ्ृी ाना

18.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 154/2013, दिनांक 30.05.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

19.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420 एवं 406 के तित मामला सं. 46/2013, दिनांक

15.05.2013, सबप म ाना

20.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

ृटरवर्िित िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 57/2013, दिनांक 28.06.2013, कमालृुर ाना

21.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 420 के तित मामला सं. 51/2013, दिनांक 16.05.2013,

तेलीयामुरा ाना

22.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420 एवं 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 138/2013, दिनांक 13.05.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

23.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420 एवं 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 207/2013, दिनांक 20.07.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

24.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 के तित मामला सं. 143/2011, दिनांक

05.10.2011, िमािनगर ाना

25.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 406 एवं 420 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की िारा 3 के

तित मामला सं. 92/2014, दिनांक 22.05.2014, सोनामुरा ाना

26.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406, 34 एवं 506 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की

िारा 3 के तित मामला सं. 180/2013, दिनांक 25.06.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

27.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की िारा

3 के तित मामला सं. 127/2013, दिनांक 07.05.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

28.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 420 के तित मामला सं. 44/2013, दिनांक 25.02.2013 ,ृजिम

अगरतला ाना

29.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की िारा

3 के तित मामला सं. 109/2013, दिनांक 26.06.2013, ृूवी अगरतला ाना

30.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420 एवं 34 के तित मामला सं. 30/2010, दिनांक

04.03.2010, िमािनगर ाना

31.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 के तित मामला सं. 102/2011, दिनांक

08.07.2011, िमािनगर ाना

32.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 के तित मामला सं. 178/2011, दिनांक

04.12.2011, कजलाििर ाना

33.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 त ा टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की िारा

3 के तित मामला सं. 128/2013, दिनांक 08.05.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

34.

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 406 एवं 34 और टीृीआईडी अजिजनयम, 2011 की िारा

3 के तित मामला सं. 130/2013, दिनांक 09.05.2013, ृजिम अगरतला ाना

[फा. सं. 228/13/2018- एवीडी-II (Vol.II))/2]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1979

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2023

S.O. 938.— 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 Tripura, issued vide Notification No. F.13(24)-PD/15(Part)/750 dated 11.03.2022 and No. F.13(24)-

PD/15 (Part)(L)/2869 dated 12.09.2022 of Home Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Tripura for investigation into the offences(s)

relating to cases mentioned in the following table and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offences(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.

Case No., Section of Law & Police Station

Kumarghat PS Case No. 27/2013 dated 21.03.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)

Teliamura PS Case No. 105/2012 dated 24.08.2012, under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

East Agartala PS Case No. 190/2014 dated 29.10.2014, under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)

West Agartala PS Case No. 76/2012 dated 03.04.2012, under sections 420, 506, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860)

East Agartala PS Case No. 83/ 2013 dated 09.05.2013, under sections 405, 406, 409, 415, 417, 420, 120B and

34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

West Agartala PS Case No. 150/ 2013 dated 24.05.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Belonia PS Case No. 241/2014 dated 10.10.2014, under sections 406, 405 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

R.K.Pur PS Case No. 177/ 2013 dated 11.05.2013, under sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)

Jirania PS Case No. 77/2012 dated 24.09.2012, under sections 420, 406 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860)

Dharmanagar PS Case No. 98/2013 dated 25.05.2013, under sections 420, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860) and added section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Kanchanpur PS Case No. 49/ 2013 dated 23.05.2013, under sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860)

Belonia PS case No. 272/2014 dated 16.12.2014, under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860) and added section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011 and sections 120 B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860)

Sonamura PS Case No. 91/2014 dated 22/05/2014, under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Khowai PS Case No. 48/2012 dated 01.06.2012, under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

Khowai PS Case No. 59/2012 dated 07.07.2012, under sections 420, 403, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)

Bishalgarh PS case No. 108/ 2012 dated 08.06.2012, under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860)

Ompi PS Case No. 22/ 2013 dated 30.08.2013, under sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

West Agartala PS Case No. 154/ 2013 dated 30.05.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Sabroom PS Case No. 46/2013 dated 15.05.2013, under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860)

Kamalpur PS Case No. 57/2013 dated 28.06.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860) and added section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Teliamura PS case No. 51/2013 dated 16.05.2013, under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

West Agartala PS Case No.138/2013 dated 13.05.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

West Agartala PS Case No. 207/ 2013 dated 20.07.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Dharmangar PS Case No. 143/ 2011 dated 05.10.2011, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860)

Sonamura PS Case No. 92/2014 dated 22.05.2014, under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

1980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

West Agartala PS Case No. 180/2013 dated 25.06.2013, under sections 420, 406, 34 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

West Agartala PS Case No. 127/2013 dated 07.05.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

West Agartala PS Case No. 44/2013 dated 25.02.2013, under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

East Agartala PS Case No. 109/ 2013 dated 26.06.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

Dharmanagar PS Case No. 30/2010 dated 04.03.2010, under sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860)

Dharmanagar PS Case No. 102/2011 dated 08.07.2011, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860)

Kailashahar PS Case No. 178/2011 dated 04.12.2011, under sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860)

West Agartala PS Case No. 128/2013 dated 08.05.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

West Agartala PS Case No. 130/2013 dated 09.05.2013, under sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 3 of the TPID Act, 2011

[F. No. 228/13/2018-AVD-II(Vol.II)/2]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2023

का.आ. 939.— केन्द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ा ृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृटठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झार ंड राज्य सरकार, गषि, कारागार

एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची की अजिसूचना सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.- 403/2023-942, दिनांक 28.02.2023, के

माध्यम से िारी स्मजत से, श्री रत्नाकर मजल्लक, वटरष्ठ प्रबंिक कार्मिक, ब्लॉक-II एटरया, बीसीसीएल, िनबाि के जवरुि

श्री सत्येंद्र कुमार जसन्िा, ृुत्र श्री दिजलृ कुमार, जलजृक, जवत्त जवभाग, ब्लॉक-II, एटरया ए.व्िी.ओ.सी.ृी., बाघमारा,

बीसीसीएल, िनबाि द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा

य ासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िण्डनीय अृराि(िों) के संबंि में दिनांक 21.02.2023 को ििि करायी गई जिकायत,

जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 01.03.2023 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी.2(ए)/2023-डी ििि दकया गया िज, से उत्ृन्न

अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण और इससे िुड़े या उससे संबि दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र या उन्िीं तथ्यों से

उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 01.03.2023 से) समस्ट्त झार ंड राज्य में करती िज

[फा. सं. 228/21/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2023

S.O. 939.—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.-403/2023-942 dated 28.02.2023, Home, Prisons 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. 01.03.2023) to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into

the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 21.02.2023 lodged by Shri Satyendra Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Dilip

Kumar, Clerk, Finance Department, Block-II, Area A.V.O.C.P., Baghmara, BCCL, Dhanbad against Shri Ratnakar

Mallick, Sr. Manager Personnel, Block-II Area, BCCL, Dhanbad 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 RC.2(A)/2023-D has been registered

on 01.03.2023 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. 228/21/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1981

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2023

का.आ. 940.—केन् द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृटठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झार ंड राज् य सरकार, गषि, कारागार

एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची की अजिसूचना सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.- 404/2023-1237, दिनांक 15.03.2023, के

माध्यम से िारी स्मजत से, श्री भीम बौरी, गाडि, 20/21 जृट्स कोजल्लयरी, मुरलीजडि, बीसीसीएल, िनबाि

(बीसीसीएल, िनबाि के वगि-IV अजिकारी) एवं अन्य अज्ञात व्यजियों के जवरुि (1) श्री रबी लाल िंसिा, ृुत्र स्ट्वगीय

लु ु िंसिा, 20/21 जृट्स के अवकाि प्राप्त फोरमजन, मुरलीजडि, मुनीजडि, बीसीसीएल, िनबाि और (2) श्री जविय टुडु

ृुत्र श्री सोना टुडु, जनिी व्यजि द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120-बी और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

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

अृराि(िों) के संबंि में दिनांक 02.03.2023 को ििि करायी गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 16.03.2023 को

एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी03(ए)/2023-डी ििि दकया गया िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण और इससे िुड़े या

उससे संबि दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने

के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक

16.03.2023 से) समस्ट्त झार ंड राज्य में करती िज

[फा. सं. 228/22/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2023

S.O. 940.—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.-404/2023-1237 dated 15.03.2023, Home, Prisons

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. 16.03.2023) to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation

into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 02.03.2023 lodged by (1) Shri Rabi Lal Hansda, S/o Late Lukhu

Hansda, Retired Foreman in 20/21 Pits, Murlidih, Moonidih, BCCL, Dhanbad and (2) Shri Vijay Tudu, S/o Shri Sona

Tudu, Pvt. Person against Shri Bhim Bauri, Guard, 20/21 Pits Colliery, Murlidih, BCCL, Dhanbad (Class-IV officer

of BCCL, Dhanbad) and unknown others under section 120-B 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), based on which a CBI case

RC03(A)/2023-D has been registered on 16.03.2023 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. 228/22/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 िून, 2023

का.आ. 941.—केन्द्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृटठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मजणृुर राज्य सरकार, गषि जवभाग,

इ्फाल की अजिसूचना सं.12/1(4)/2023-एच(सी.बी.आई.), दिनांक 02.06.2023, के माध्यम से िारी स्मजत से, राज्य

में िाजलया हिंसा से िुड़े जनम्नजलज त 06 (छैः) एफ.आई.आर. का अन्वेषण और इनसे िुड़े या उससे संबि दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

िुष्प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मजणृुर राज्य में करती िजैः-

(i) सीआईडी अृराि िा ा ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता की िाराएं 120-बी/ 143/ 147/ 148/ 302/ 392/ 435/

436/447/448/449/34; आयुि अजिजनयम की िारा 25 & यूए(ृी) अजिजनयम की िारा 16 के अंतगित ििि

एफ.आई.आर. सं. 2(05)2023 सीबी-ृीएस;

(ii) हिंगांग ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता की िाराएं 145/147/149/151/395/447/456/457/458/ 34 & 25

आयुि अजिजनयम के अंतगित ििि एफ.आई.आर. सं. 54(05)2023 एचएनिी ृीएस;

1982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(iii) चुराचांिृुर ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता की िाराएं 143/148/427/395, ृीडीृीृी अजिजनयम की िारा 3 के

अंतगित ििि एफ.आई.आर. सं. 89(05)2023 सीसीृी-ृीएस;

(iv) इ्फाल ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता की िाराएं 148/188/302/34 सृटठत यूए(ृी) अजिजनयम की िारा 16 &

भारतीय िंड संजिता की िारा 120-बी के अंतगित ििि एफ.आई.आर. सं. 137(05)2023 आईृीएस;

(v) लमसांग ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता की िाराएं 326/307/302/506/400 & आयुि अजिजनयम की िारा 25

(1-बी), यूए(ृी) अजिजनयम की िारा 16 के अंतगित ििि एफ.आई.आर. सं. 532(05)2023 एलएसिी-ृीएस;

और

(vi) फौगकचाओ इ ाई ाना में भारतीय िंड संजिता की िाराएं 143/148/188/506/504/436/332/34 के अंतगित

ििि एफ.आई.आर. सं. 7(05)2023 ृीिीसीआई-ृीएस

[फा. सं. 228/35/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2023

S.O. 941.—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 Manipur, issued vide Notification No. 12/1(4)/2023-H(CBI) dated 02.06.2023, Home Department,

Imphal, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Manipur for investigation of following 06 (six) FIRs in connection with recent violence in the State:-

(i) FIR No. 2(05)2023 CB-PS U/s 120-B/143/147/148/302/392/435/436/447/448/449/34 IPC; 25 Arms Act & 16

UA(P) Act registered at CID Crime Branch Police Station;

(ii) FIR No. 54(05)2023 HNG PS U/s 145/147/149/151/395/447/456/457/458/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act registered at

Heingang Police Station;

(iii) FIR No. 89(05)2023 CCP-PS U/s 143/148/427/395 IPC, 3 of PDPP Act registered at Churachandpur Police

Station;

(iv) FIR No. 137(05)2023 IPS U/s 148/188/302/34 IPC r/w 16 UA(P) Act & 120-B IPC registered at Imphal Police

Station;

(v) FIR No. 532(05)2023 LSG PS U/s 326/307/302/506/400 IPC & 25 (1-B) Arms Act, 16 UA(P) Act registered at

Lamsang Police Station; and

(vi) FIR No. 7(05)2023 PGCI-PS U/s 143/148/188/506/504/436/332/34 IPC registered at Phougakchao Ikhai Police

Station

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. 228/35/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाजणज्य जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 13 िून, 2023

का.आ. 942.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयाित (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के

उृजनयम (2) के सा ृटठत, जनयाित (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की िारा 7 की

उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, दिनांक 19 फ़रवरी 2022 को भारत के रािृत्र, भाग- II, ण्ड–

3, उृ ण्ड (ii) में प्रकाजित, का.आ. 196 दिनांक 31 िनवरी 2022, वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की

अजिसूचना का अजिक्रमण करते हुए, इस अजिक्रमण से ृूवि दकए गए अ वा, छोड़ दिए गए कायों को छोड़कर, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मजससि जमत्रा एस.के. प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, द्वार सं्‍या : 8-45-9/2/1, बी.सी जवध्या नगर कॉलोनी, चौ ी गली, जनकट

ृुराने सी बी आई डाउन, जविा ाृट्नम, आंध्र प्रिेि- 530003 (जिसे एतद्ृिात उि अजभकरण किा िाएगा), दिनांक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1983

30 िनवरी 2025 तक की अवजि के जलए भारत सरकार के वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािृत्र में प्रकाजित, दिनांक

20 दिस्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 त ा दिनांक 20 दिस्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3978

के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उृाबि अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट जनि और अयस्ट् क – समूि 1, अ ाित, लौि अयस्ट्क,

मैंगनीि अयस्ट्क, फेरोमैंगनीि त ा बाक्साइट; और जनि और अयस्ट् क – समूि 2, अ ाित, क्रोम कंसन्रेट सजित क्रोम

अयस्ट्क, के जनयाित से ृूवि जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन जविा ाृट्नम ृत्तन, गंगावरम ृत्तन, काकीनाडा ृत्तन एवं

कषष्णाृट्टनम ृत्तन में उक् त जनि और अयस्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ाित :

(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि- का जनयाित (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 त ा जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि- का

जनयाित (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की ृिजत की िाँच करने के जलये जनयाित जनरीक्षण

ृटरषि द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाटरयों को ृयािप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान करेगी; और

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में जनर्ििष्टानुसार इसके कायो के जनष्ृािन के जलए जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता

जनयंत्रण), जनयाित जनरीक्षण ृटरषि द्वारा समय-समय ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबि िोंगी

[फा. सं. के-16014/18/2021-जनयाित जनरीक्षण]

एम. बालािी, संयुक त सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2023

S.O. 942.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Commerce and Industry, number S.O. 196, dated 31^st January, 2022, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section

3, sub section (ii), dated the 19^th February, 2022, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such

supersession, the Central Government now recognizes M/s Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Door no. 8-45-9/2/1/B, C

Vidyanagar Colony, 4^th Lane, Near Old CBI Down, Visakhapatnam, Andhra pradesh- 530003, as an agency

(hereinafter referred to as the said agency) for a period up to the 30^th January, 2025, for inspection of Minerals and

Ores - Group I, namely, Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferromanganese and Bauxite; and Minerals and Ores - Group II,

namely, Chrome Ore including Chrome Concentrate as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975 dated the

20^th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated the 20^th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals

and Ores at Visakhapatnam Port, Gangavaram Port, Kakinada Port and Krishnapatnam port subject to the following

conditions, namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and

Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

and

(ii)

the said agency shall, in performance of its function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing

from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/18/2021 - Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 िून, 2023

का.आ. 943.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग), जनयम, 1976 के जनयम-

10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय के अंतगित, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण के

जन् नजलज त कायािलयों, जिनमें 80 प्रजतित कार्मिकों ने हिंिी का कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज,

को एतद्द्वारा अजि सूजच त करती िज

1984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, चेन् नई अंतरराष् रीय िवाई अ ा, चेन् नई

(तजमलनाडू)

2 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, इंफाल िवाई अ ा, इंफाल (मजणृुर)

3 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, िीमाृुर िवाई अ ा, िीमाृुर (नागालैंड)

4 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, िोरिाट िवाई अ ा, िोरिाट (असम)

5 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, लीलाबारी िवाई अ ा, उत् तर लज मृुर

(असम)

6 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, लेंगृुई िवाई अ ा, आईिोल जमिोरम)

7 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, प ृसी िवाई अ ा, कोकराझार (असम)

8 जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय, भारतीय जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, तेिू िवाई अ ा, तेिू (अप णाचल प्रिेि)

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]

ृीयूष श्रीवास्ट् तव, वटरष् ठ आर् िक सलािकार एवं अृर सजचव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2023

S.O. 943.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purposes

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following Offices of the Airports Authority of

India, under Ministry of Civil Aviation , whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Chennai International Airport, Chennai (Tamil Nadu)

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Imphal Airport, Imphal (Manipur)

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Dimapur Airport, Dimapur (Nagaland)

Office Of The Airport Director, Airports Authority Of India, Jorhat Airport, Jorhat (Assam)

Office Of The Airport Director, Airports Authority Of India, Lilabari Airport, North Lakhimpur (Assam)

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Lengpui Airport, Aizawl (Mizoram)

Office Of The Airport Director, Airports Authority Of India, Rupsi Airport, Kokrajhar (Assam)

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Tezu Airport, Tezu (Arunachal Pradesh)

[F. No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]

PIYUSH SRIVASTAVA, Senior Economic Advisor & Addl. Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 944.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1 947(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

15/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22012/125/2013- आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1985

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYEMENT

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2013) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L-22012/125/2013 -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. 15 OF 2013

PARTIES: Kamal Deo Turi

Vs.

Management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. BCCL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: None.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.04.2023

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-

22012/125/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Victoria West Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management to dismiss from service to Sri Kamal Deo Turi, Ex-

Tyndel. Victoria West Colliery is fair, proper, justified and proportionate punishment for

absence from duty. If not so what relief management can provide him? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/125/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 18.09.2013 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 15 of 2013 was registered on 14.02.2014

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. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited is present. The

case is fixed up today for appearance of the workman, Kamal Deo Turi, his representation by advocate or union and

cross-examination of the witness. On a perusal of the record, it appears that Notice was sent to Mr. S. K. Pandey,

General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress. Written statement was filed by Mr. S. K. Pandey, on 07.01.2016.

However, Mr. Gaya Prasad Mal, learned advocate representing Kamal Deo Turi filed Affidavit-in-chief on

14.12.2016. The workman failed to turn up for his cross-examination. Record reveals that as per direction of this

Tribunal fresh Notice was issued to Kamal Deo Turi under registered Post at his address mentioned in his affidavit-in-

chief but the workman failed to turn up. Ample opportunity has been provided to the workman to proceed with the

case since 2013.

3. The Management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited also filed the written statement through Mr. P. K. Das,

learned advocate. No evidence has been adduced by the parties in this case. Under such circumstances it is presumed

that the workman, Kamal Deo Turi is not inclined to proceed further with the case. Considered. The Reference case is

accordingly disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

1986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 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, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 945.—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

27/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22012/67/2012- आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2012) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L-22012/67/2012 -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. 27 OF 2012

PARTIES: Mahadeo Bhuia

Vs.

Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mahadeo Bhuia.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.05.2023

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), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/67/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment

HRA @ 10% of Basic Pay to Sri Mahadio Bhuiya is fair and justified? To what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to? ”

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1987

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/67/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2012 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 27 of 2012 was registered on 25.06.2012

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.

2. After laps of more than ten years Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited and filed a written statement on behalf of Management of J. K. Nagar (R) Colliery, M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited. According to the version of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited Mahadeo Bhuia

is working as a Line Mazdoor at J. K. Nagar (R) Colliery under Satgram Area and he is residing in the company

quarter bearing no. NHS/7/112 since his appointment. Electricity charges are deducted from his salary as per norms of

the company. Therefore, he is not entitled to get Hour Rent Allowance (HRA).

3. Further case of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is that according to the company Circular No. M/s.

ECL/CMD/C-6/WBE-1/498 dated 28.06.2006 the employees who are residing in the company’s accommodation shall

not be granted/sanctioned House Rent Allowance even in the event of vacating of company’s accommodation. In their

written statement it has been disclosed that as per guidelines of the Company, employees working under J. K. Nagar

(R) Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is entitled to House Rent Allowance @ 2% of

stagnant basic on 01.07.2016. Therefore, the demand for 10% as House Rent Allowance is totally justified.

Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited thereafter has prayed for rejecting the claims of the petitioner

workman.

4. Mahadeo Bhuia was examined in this case as workman witness – 1. In his evidence-in-chief, on oath, the

workman deposed that he is residing in his own house built on the land of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He further

stated that he is not occupying any quarters allotted to him by the company but the employer company is deducting his

House Rent Allowance. The witness further deposed that he did not raise any Industrial Dispute claiming House Rent

Allowance through any union and has no grievance against the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. In

course of cross-examination the witness deposed that his mother was an employee under M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited and on her death, he got employed under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited as a dependent of his mother, in the

year 1996. At the time of his mother’s employment, she was residing at Central Satgram Colony. He also stated that

there are other quarters in the vicinity of his residence. He also denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to any

House Rent Allowance.

5. The Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited did not adduce any evidence in this case and relied

upon a letter bearing No. ECL/CMD/C-6/WBE-1/498 dated 28.06.2006 issued by the Deputy (Chief) Personnel

Manager (Estb./MP), addressed to the General Manager, Sodepur/Sripur/Satgram Areas and to the Agent, Sodepur

Central Workshop relating to the payment of House Rent Allowance to non-executive employees. Copy of this letter

has been marked as Annexure-1 to the written statement filed by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. It appears from the

communication dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure-1) that : “the employees who are living in the company’s

accommodation shall not be granted/sanctioned House Rent Allowance even in the event of vacating of company’s

accommodation”.

6. In the instant case the evidence of Mahadeo Bhuia (workman witness-1) gives out the facts that he is residing

in a house built on the land of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. He is also enjoying electricity supplied by M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited for which charges are deducted from his salary. The evidence implies that the workman is

residing in the premises of the company since the time of his mother, who was also an employee of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited.

7. From such facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that Mahadeo Bhuia is not entitled to

any House Rent Allowance. In his evidence-in-chief, workman witness-1 has stated that he did not raise any Industrial

Dispute against his Employer company, claiming House Rent Allowance through union and he has no grievance

against the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Harping upon such vital statement of the workman, I

hold that the claim for House Rent Allowance of the workman as encapsulated in the Schedule of the Reference case

is without any merit and the same is dismissed on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is dismissed on contest. An award be drawn up in the light of the above finding. Let

copies of the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India

for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

1988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 946.—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

09/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22012/11/2019- आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2019) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L- 22012/11/2019 -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. 09 OF 2019

Parties: Dependent son of Late Nago Bhuia

Vs.

Management of Shankarpur Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.05.2023

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-

22012/11/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Shankarpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management, the Agent Shankarpur Colliery of Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. P.O. Ukhra, in denying employment to the son of deceased workman

Shri Nago Bhuia is fair and just? If not, what relief the dependents of the deceased are

entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/11/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2019 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 09 of 2019 was registered on 18.02.2019

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.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is present and filed

his Vokalatnama. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative appeared on behalf of the son of the deceased workman,

Nago Bhuia. After four years from registration of this case, no written statement has been filed by any of the parties.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1989

It seems that parties are not diligent in proceeding with the case. Union representative could not produce the

dependent of deceased employee, interested with employment.

3. On the perusal of record, it appears that after assuming charge of this Tribunal, on earlier occasion I passed

an order on 02.01.2023 fixing the case for appearance and filing written statement with an observation that in default

it would be presumed that there is no dispute,

4. On 17.03.2023, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative submitted that the dependents of deceased

workman are in a very difficult situation and he may be given another opportunity for representing the case. For ends

of justice, case has been fixed up today (i.e. 03.05.2023) for appearance and filing written statement. Till date there

has been no communication and no step has been taken by the parties to canvass their case. Under such circumstance,

I am of view that there is no cogent reasons for adjourning this case any further. The Industrial Dispute is therefore

dismissed in 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, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 947.—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 (आवेिन

la[;k 05/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2023-आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (APPLICATION No. 05/2018) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L-22013/01/2023 -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.

APPLICATION NO. 05 OF 2018

PARTIES: Kartick Turi.

Vs.

Management of Parascole (East) Colliery of M/s. M/s. ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

1990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.04.2023

AWARD

1. The Application under sub-section 2 and 3 of Section 2A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is fixed up today

for hearing on the point of its maintainability. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative has appeared for the

petitioner Kartick Turi and Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited.

2. The application has been filed directly before this Tribunal supported by a Certificate issued by Conciliation

Officer under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 dated 04.07.2018, disclosing that Mr. Rakesh Kumar,

President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute

(Amendment) Act, 2010 before the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raniganj at Durgapur

consequent upon the termination of Kartick Turi, Ex-Trammer from the services w.e.f. 07/12.12.2016 by the

Management of Parascole (East) Colliery of Kajora Area, M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. As no settlement was be

reached within the mandatory period of forty-five (45) days a Certificate was issued in favour of the Union for the

purpose of inability to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court for adjudication of

the said dispute. In this application under Section 2A (2)(3) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the applicant prayed for

his reinstatement in service with full back wages and with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his

dismissal. Since filing of the application on 25.09.2018 case was fixed on several dates for hearing on the point of

maintainability of the application but the union representative failed to produce Kartick Turi before the Tribunal on

consecutive dates. Therefore, it appears that the alleged aggrieved person Kartick Turi is possibly not inclined to

proceed. The union representative cannot stretch the proceeding at his behest without the aggrieved workman

showing his face or interest. Under such circumstances I am constrain to dismiss the Application.

Hence,

ORDERED

The Application under sub-section 2 and 3 of section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is dismissed. An

Award be drawn up in light of the above decision. 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, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 948.—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- 153/1999) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22012/132/99- आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 153/1999) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L-22012/132/99 -IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1991

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. 153 OF 1999

PARTIES: Shri Subodh Singh

Vs.

Management of Kenda Colliery of Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

19.04.2023

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-22012/132/99/IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Kenda Colliery of Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Kenda Colliery of Pandaveshwar Area of M/s.

ECL in not providing employment to the dependent of Sh. Subodh Singh, Tyndal as per the

clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V is legal and justifie If not, to what relief is dependent of the

workman is entitled ?”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/132/99/IR(CM-II) dated 31.08.1999 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 153 of 1999 was registered on 23.09.1999

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 etc. and list of witnesses.

2. Case is fixed up today for hearing of argument. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appeared on behalf of

the Management of Kenda Colliery and filed his Vokalatnama. On call none appears for the dependents of Subodh

Singh, ex workman. This is a very old case pending since 1999, whereby dependents of deceased workman claimed

employment as per provisions of clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V.

3. On perusal of the record I find that initially Mr. S.K. Pandey, union representative had appeared on behalf of

dependents and Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the Management. Mr. P. Banerjee,

learned advocate had filed written statement on behalf of workman stating that the dependents of Subodh Singh are

entitled to employment under provisions of NCWA-V but nowhere in the application the name of dependents of

Subodh Singh has been disclosed.

4. The Management also filed a written statement in response to the Industrial Dispute referred for

adjudication. In paragraph six it is disclosed that Subodh Singh was discharged from the hospital on 21.07.1995 after

receiving full opportunities for treatment and subsequently he died on 24.07.1995. It is further disclosed that Subodh

Singh had duly superannuated on 16.07.1995. Therefore, due to death after superannuation the dependent of such

employee is not entitled to any employment.

5. Sanjukta Devi, wife of Late Subodh Singh in her affidavit-in-chief stated that on 04.11.1994 he was on duty

and met with an accident due to hard landing of a descending cage at pit bottom of Ram Nagar No. 3 Pit. The accident

was of serious nature and he was medically treated upto 21.07.1995 and was discharged from hospital though he was

not fit. It is further stated that medical treatment of Subodh Singh continued at New Eveland Nursing Home until his

death on 24.09.1995. A copy of death certificate issued by New Eveland Nursing Home has been submitted.

6. None has appeared on behalf of the dependents of deceased workman. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate

for ECL argued that since Subodh Singh had superannuated from his service prior to his death, his dependents are not

entitled to any employment for the injuries sustained by him during his employment. On close scrutiny of record, I

1992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

find that the injured workman died after his superannuation. It further appears that the dependents of the deceased

employee did not approach the Employer company by filing any formal application disclosing the name of the

dependent who was inclined to get an employment. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this claim.

The case is accordingly dismissed on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed against the dependent of ex-employee. Let a copy of this Award be

sent to Ministry for information

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 949.—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-

16/2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/3/2010-आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2010) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L- 22012/3/2010 -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. 16 OF 2010

PARTIES: Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union (INTUC)

Vs.

Management of Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: None

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

26.04.2023

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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/3/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 31.05.2010 has referred the following Industrial dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Sodepur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by

this Tribunal.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1993

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Unions for payment of HRA @ 15% HRA is legal and justified? To

what relief are the claimants entitled for?”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/3/2010-IR(CM-II) dated 31.05.2010 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 16 of 2010 was registered on 14.06.2010

and notices were issued to the General Manager of Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL & to the Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor

Union (INTUC). Mr. Sanjoy Majee, the President of the union initially appeared and filed written statement. The

contention of the union is that the Government of India by Notification No. 2/(43)/95-E-11(B)/Govt. of India dated

17^th April, 1996, declared Asansol as urban area and as B-2 class city for the purpose of House rent allowance w.e.f.

31.01.1994. Furthermore, in the memorandum of Coal India Limited, bearing no. CIL/C-5-A (vi)/50727/252 dated

14th June, 2001 Asansol has been given the status of A-class city. According to the union, implementation of the

directives in the notification dated 17.04.1996 is necessary. It is urged on behalf of the workmen that Coal India

Limited has totally ignored the notification of Government of India by declaring Asansol as a ‘C’ class city.

Therefore, the workers of M/s. ECL not having company accommodation at Asansol are being paid HRA at the rate of

10% of their basic pay instead of 15% applicable to B-2 class cities from 31.01.1994 to 31.12.2008 and at the rate of

20% applicable to Asansol as declared ‘Y’ class city from 01.01.2009.

2. It is contended that workmen as well as union submitted representation before the Management for securing

15% HRA and 20% HRA, but the Employer company has paid no heed. The matter was initially referred for

conciliation. The Management was reluctant to settle the dispute amicably. As a result, the union has raised this

dispute seeking immediate payment of arrear HRA at the rate of 5% less drawn from 31.01.1994 to 31.12.2008 and

arrear of HRA at the rate of 10% less drawn from 01.01.2019 and also implementation of HRA at the rate of 20% to

the employees not having company quarter.

3. The General Manager of Sodepur Area, ECL in his written statement contented that the case of the union is

based on misrepresentation of facts relating to payment of House Rent Allowance to the employees. It is asserted that

since inception of Coal India Limited, all pay and perquisites payable to the employees are based upon the provision

of NCWA – I to IX. The employees are being paid their HRA as per guidelines of chapter VIII of NCWA – VIII and

circulars issued from time to time. It is further stated that the workmen under M/s. ECL are getting 10% of their basic

pay as HRA and the demand for payment of HRA at the rate of 20% is not legally maintainable and the claim of the

union in this regard is absurd and baseless.

4. Further case of the Management is that domestic fuel coal or reimbursement of LPG in lieu of fuel coal is

being provided to the workmen. Therefore, the workmen are not entitled to get HRA at the rate of 20%.

5. In support of their case, Sanjoy Majee, the union representative examined himself as WW-1. In his affidavit-

in-chief, he has reiterated that Asansol has been declared as B-2 city with effect from 31.09.1994 but M/s. ECL as

well as CIL have wrongly categorized Asansol as ‘C’ type city. The workmen having no company quarters in B-2

cities are therefore entitled to receive 15% of basic as House Rent Allowance whereas for ‘C’ category cities, the

House Rent Allowance is 10%. It is further affirmed that no extra benefit is received by worker of M/s. ECL in the

coalfield area. In course of cross-examination, WW-1 has stated that he is the office bearer of the union and also a

workman. He stated that he can show the notification of Corporation that the area where the aggrieved workmen are

working is a B-2 category city. He also denied the suggestion that Narsamuda Colliery is not within Asansol city. The

witness refuted the suggestion that they are not entitled to 15% HRA or were entitled to only 10% HRA.

6. Several opportunities were granted to Management for adducing evidence in this case but no evidence is

adduced. Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate submitted that he would like to file a notification that Narsamuda Coliery

was not included under Asansol Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the claim of the workmen that they are entitled to

15% HRA in respect of their place of work at Narsamuda Colliery is not maintainable.

7. The focal point of this dispute is whether the workmen of M/s. ECL residing within the area of Asansol

Municipal Corporation are entitled to 10% of their basic as House Rent Allowance or they are entitled to receive HRA

at the rate of 15 % of the basic pay. In Swamy’s Annual 1996, paragraph 72 of part-B which relates to HRA it has

been provided in M.F.,O.M. No. 2 (43)/95-E.II (B), dated 17.04.1996 that Asansol (WB) has been upgraded as ‘B-2’

class city for the purpose of House Rent Allowance from 31.01.1994. It has been stated therein that the President of

India is, accordingly, pleased to decide that Asansol shall stand classified as ‘B-2’ class for the purpose of grant of

House Rent Allowance to Central Government Employees posted at Asansol. The classification of Asansol as ‘B-2’

for City Compensatory Allowance already exists and that order shall take effect from 31.01.1994. According to

National Coal Wage Agreement–VII Implementation Instruction dealing with House Rent Allowance for employees

in Urban Areas (Paragraph 8.1.3 of NCWA-VII) it has been provided that B-2 Class Cities will be paid House Rent

Allowance at the rate of 15% of their basic as per reclassification of cities by the Government. Therefore, this

provision is binding upon the Management of ECL. I therefore hold that the employees of ECL working within the

Municipal Corporation of Asansol who have not been provided with accommodation by the company are entitled to

15% of their basic pay as HRA subject to a maximum of Rs. 2286.30 with effect from 01.07.2004. The employees

1994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who have been paid 10% of their basic pay as House Rent Allowance therefore shall be entitled to the less drawn

amount of 5% of their basic pay. In the present case the provision of 8.1.3 of NCWA-VII will have binding effect

upon the employer and employees, giving effect to the new rate of HRA from 01.07.2004.

8. Furthermore, in National Coal Wage Agreement–VIII Implementation Instruction No. 16 dated 22.07.2009,

House Rent Allowance for employees in Urban Areas has been laid down in Paragraph 8.1.3 of NCWA-VIII. It was

agreed that there would be no ceiling on basic pay for payment of House Rent Allowance in urban areas and the

payment shall be subject to clarification from DPE regarding reclassification of cities. It was further provided that in

terms of O.M No. 2(70)/08-DPE(WC)-GL-XVI/08 dated 26.11.2008 and OM No. 2(70)/08-DPE(WC)-GL-VII dated

02.04.2009 from Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, payment of HRA to the

employees of CPSE’s on population basis would be 20% of basic pay for cities classified as ‘Y’. The city of Asansol

has been declared as ‘Y’ category city with effect from 29.08.2008. From the letter of Office Superintendent of

Asansol Municipal Corporation, I find that Narsamuda Colliery is within the limits of Ward No. 57, Borough No.-VII

of Asansol Municipal Corporation. It also appears that previously it was under Ward No. 50, Borough No.-VII.

9. Accordingly, the employees of M/s. ECL working within Municipal Area of Asansol and Narsamuda

Colliery in particular who have not been provided with company accommodation are entitled to 20% of their basic

pay as HRA with effect from 01.01.2009. It needs to be mentioned that as per National Coal Wage Agreement–VIII

Implementation Instruction No. 16 dated 22.07.2009, no arrear shall be payable for the period from 01.07.2006 to

31.12.2009 on revised basic pay on account of HRA as per NCWA-VIII. Arrear of less drawn HRA @ 5% of Basic

pay from 01.07.2004 till 31.12.2009 and less drawn HRA @ 10% of Basic pay from 01.01.2009 till date be paid to the

employees of M/s. ECL working within Asansol Municipal Corporation area and who are not having company

accommodation. The Industrial Dispute is disposed of in favour of workmen in the light of my above findings.

Hence,

ORDERED

The reference case is decided in favour of workmen/union. Let an Award be drawn in favour of workmen to

the effect that House Rent Allowance at the rate of 15% of basic be paid to employees not provided with company’s

accommodation within the Municipal Area of Asansol with effect from 01.07.2004 subject to maximum of

Rs. 2286.30 and House Rent Allowance at the rate of 20% of the basic with effect from 01.01.2009. The dues shall be

paid to the employees less the amount already drawn towards the HRA, within three months from the date of

notification of this Award. Let a copy of this Award be communicated to Ministry for information.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 950.—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

52/2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/363/2003-आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2004) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L- 22012/363/2003-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. 52 OF 2004

PARTIES: Sunil Bouri

Vs.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1995

Management of Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.03.2023

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-

22012/363/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Gourandih-Begunia Colliery of M/s. ECL in not

providing employment to Shri Sunil Bouri, the dependent son of Late Pashupati Bouri,

Haulage Khalasi, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned dependent is entitled

and from which date? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/363/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 04.10.2004 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 52 of 2004 was registered on 14.10.2004

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. Sunil Bouri the dependent son of Late Pasupati Bouri, ex-employee of Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred as M/s. ECL) filed his written statement through Mr. Rakesh Kumar,

President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress. It has been contended that Late Pasupati Bouri died on 16.01.1991 at the

Central Hospital, Kalla of M/s. ECL while he was posted as Under Ground Haulage Khalasi at Tara Colliery under

Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s. ECL. According to provisions of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA (National Coal Wage

Agreement) -VI on death of an employee his dependent, who is not more that thirty-five years of age on that date and

physically fit is entitled to an employment. Sunil Bouri applied for his employment in place of his father and

submitted necessary documents. The employment proposal was approved by the Screening Committee of the Colliery

and Area level the same was forwarded to the Head Quarters of M/s. ECL, recommending Sunil Bouri for

employment vide their letter bearing Ref. No. C-6/96/P-3216/03 dated 27.03.2003. Several years have passed but the

Management of M/s. ECL did not provide employment to Sunil Bouri. It is contended by the dependent that he does

not have any source of income for maintaining his family and is facing starvation. Further the case of dependent of

the workman is that he is illiterate and belongs to Schedule Cast and he should be provided with employment on

humanitarian ground as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement.

3. The Management of M/s. ECL contested the claim by filing written statement. According to the Agent of

Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s. ECL, Late Pasupati Bouri was an employee under the Management of M/s. ECL

and died on 16.01.1991, while he was still in service as such one of his dependents is entitled to get an employment.

Sunil Bouri, son of Late Pasupati Bouri submitted his claim. Which was processed for consideration. However, Smt.

Sajani Bouri andothers claimed that Smt. Sajani Bouri is the widow of Late Pasupati Bouri and filed a Title Suit

bearing No. T.S. 61/91 before the learned 3^rd Munisf Court at Asansol, which passed an order of injunction dated

22.06.1991, restraining the Management from providing employment. According to the Management the Union has

no Locus-standi to raise the Industrial Dispute for the reason that the deceased was not a member of the Union. An

application was submitted by Sunil Bouri in the year 1998 and on the basis of such application he was called to

appear before the Area Screening Committee at Salanpur Area Office of M/s. ECL but the applicant failed to appear.

From time to time the Management of M/s. ECL passed guidelines that application with regard to Clause 9.4.0 of

NCWA-V must be submitted within thirty days vide letter No. M/s. ECL/D(P)47/4484 dated 17.03.1998. The time for

submission of application was further extended by two months vide a Circular bearing No. ECL/D(P)/47/12739 dated

07.09.1999. Once again, the time was extended vide Circular No. ECL/D(P)/47/10249 dated 07.06.2001, whereby

applications could be considered if the same was received within three months from the date of death. It is contended

that no employment can be reserved for an indefinite period or for any period beyond the time mentioned in the

Circular. It is urged that Sunil Bouri is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him and the Industrial Dispute is liable

to be dismissed.

1996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. In support of his case Sunil Bouri examined himself as workman witness -1. He has filed an affidavit-in-

chief wherein he has reiterated his claim for employment due to the death of his father on 16.01.1991, while he was in

service. The witness has produced a copy of the Death Certificate of his father issued by Central Hospital, Kalla as

Exhibit W-1, a copy of the Death Registration Certificate as Exhibit W-2, a copy of letter dated 05.08.1999 issued

to Sunil Bouri by the Senior Personnel Officer of Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s. ECL asking him to submit

Death Registration Certificate of his father as Exhibit W-3, a copy of reminder dated 07.01.2004 by the Company for

submission of Death Registration Certificate of the ex-employee as Exhibit W-4, a copy of letter dated 25.07.2003

issued by the Director (Personnel and IR) regarding criteria for determining the age of the next kin for appointment on

compassionate ground as Exhibit W-5, a copy of the Voter’s Identity Card as Exhibit W-6, a copy of Aadhaar Card as

Exhibit W-7, and a copy of Death Registration Certificate of the mother of Sunil Bouri as Exhibit W-8. Management

was directed to produce Service Record Excerpt (SRE) of Late Pasupati Bouri but no SRE was produced on the

ground that they have no dispute regarding Sunil Bouri being one of the sons of Late Pasupati Bouri.

5. It appears from the record that after evidence of Workman Witness was closed Management was given

opportunity to adduce evidence on 29.03.2016, 07.06.2016 and 23.08.2016. On 23.08.2016 Mr. P. K. Goswami,

learned advocate for the Management submitted that the Management of M/s. ECL will not adduce any evidence in

this case. Accordingly, evidence of the Management was closed.

6. The point for consideration before this Tribunal at this stage is whether Sunil Bouri is entitled to get any

employment under M/s. ECL as a dependent of Late Pasupati Bouri.

7. It is derived from the written statement filed on behalf of the Management of M/s. ECL that Late Pasupati

Bouri was an employee under M/s. ECL and died on 16.01.1991, while he was in employment. It is also admitted that

Sunil Bouri is the dependent son of Late Pasupati Bouri. Sunil Bouri submitted a claim for his employment as a

dependent of the deceased. According to the averments in the written statement of M/s. ECL Smt. Sajani Bouri filed a

Title Suit before the Court of learned 3^rd Munsif at Asansol, claiming herself as the widow of the deceased. In Title

Suit No. 61 of 1991 the Court passed an order of injunction on 22.06.1991 restraining the Management from

providing employment to anyone as dependent of Late Pasupati Bouri. The Employer Company has contended that an

application was submitted in the year 1998 for providing an employment to Sunil Bouri and he was asked to appear

before the Area Screening Committee at Salanpur Area Officer of M/s. ECL. Circular were issued by the Company

from time to time, extending the period for submitting application for employment by the dependent under Clause

NCWA-V and time was extended from thirty days to three months from the date of death.

8. Mr. Goswami, learned advocate for the Management of M/s. ECL argued that since the application for

employment was submitted after a very long period, the same could not be accepted and the petitioner is not entitled

to any appointment under M/s. ECL.

9. I have no hesitation to take notice of the fact that The Management is the custodian of all the documents and

it has been admitted by them that the prayer for employment of Sunil Bouri was processed by the Area Screening

Committee. The Management of M/s. ECL preferred not to adduce any evidence as a result the documents related to

steps taken by the Area Screening Committee were not placed before the Tribunal.

10. On a scrutiny of the cross-examination of Sunil Bouri (workman witness-1), it appears that on the date of

death of his father he was about twenty-one years of age. He also admitted that Smt. Sajani Bouri filed a Title Suit

against him before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Asansol. Such statements support the case of

Employer that an order of injunction was passed by the Civil Court, restraining the Employer Company from

providing employment to dependent of Late Pasupati Bouri. In his cross-examination Sunil Bouri stated that after the

dispute in Title Suit was settled, he applied for his employment after the lapse of ten years from the date of death of

his father. No copy of order passed in the Title Suit No. 61 of 1991 has been filed before this Tribunal to show the

time and manner in which the Suit was disposed of. From the trend of cross-examination, it would appear that the

delay in submitting application by Sunil Bouri for his employment was due to pendency of the Civil Suit which

restrained the Employer Company from considering any prayer for employment of the dependent of Late Pasupati

Bouri. Therefore, the delay in filing the application for employment cannot be attributed to Sunil Bouri.

11. In the case of Gopal Mandal vs State of West Bengal (2012 (2) CHN 705), the Hon’ble Calcutta High

Court held that :

“once the application for compassionate appointment has been processed when the applicant already attained

majority, then the matter has to be looked beyond the dry contours of the situation.”

12. In the case of Subimal Sarkar vs State of West Bengal (2012 SCC Online Cal 4257), the Hon’ble

Calcutta High Court observed:

“ the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be denied by the authorities by keeping the

application pending for an unreasonably long period of time, only in order to frustrate the purpose of the application.

It cannot also be said that the necessity for compassionate appointment has been blown over due to passage of time.”

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1997

13. In the case of State of West Bengal and others vs Debargha Chakraborty and another ((2017) SCC

Online Cal 43), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was of the opinion that :

“the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay not attributable to him.”

In the present case the petitioner, Sunil Bouri could not have submitted an application for his employment till

disposal of the Title Suit which admittedly prevented the Employer Company from processing such application.

14. It transpires from the evidence of the workman witness that on 05.08.1999, the Senior Personnel Officer of

Gourandi-Begunia Colliery of M/s. ECL issued a letter to Sunil Bouri requesting him to appear before an interview

board on 16.07.1999 in connection with his employment and also to produce a Death Registration Certificate his

deceased father (Exhibit W-3). Another copy of letter dated 07.01.2000 was issued to Sunil Bouri in connection of

earlier letter date 05.08.1999 and once again reminding him to submit the Death Registration Certificate of his father

within one month from the date of receipt of the letter and if he failed to produce the same within the stipulated period

his claim for employment against the death of his father would be rejected. From these communication through

letters, which remained uncontroverted during cross-examination of workman witness, it transpires that the

Management of M/s. ECL had processed his prayer for employment during the period from the year1999 to 2000. It

was well within the knowledge of Employer of Late Pasupati Bouri that he died at the Central Hospital, Kalla on

16.01.1991. Central Hospital, Kalla is under the administration and control of M/s. ECL, therefore the question

regarding death of Late Pasupati Bouri and production of the Death Registration Certificate was entirely a technical

issue. The inability of the dependent son to produce the Death Registration Certificate within the stipulated time in the

letter cannot be a reason for rejecting his claim for employment. Exhibit W-1 is a copy of the Death Certificate

produced by the son of the deceased. It appears from the document that Late Pasupati Bouri died at the age of fifty-

two years due to Cardiac Respiratory Failure in a case of Midbrain Hemorrhage.

15. There is no other contender for the employment and the Management did not produce the Service Record

Excerpt of Late Pasupati Bouri.

16. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative appearing for the son of the deceased employee has accrued in

favour of Sunil Bouri on the basis of the provisions in Clause 9.3.0 and 9.3.1 of NCWA-V which provide that :

“Employment would be provided to one dependent of workers who are disabled permanently and also those who

die while in service.”

Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-V further provides that :

“The dependent to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged

not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given

in Clause 9.5.0.”

According to the Circular Ref. No. CIL/C-5B/JBCCI/9.4.2/163 dated 25.07.2003 relating to prescribed age limit

for appointment of eligible dependent, it was agreed in NCWA that the criteria for determination of age of the next

kin for appointment on compassionate ground was discussed in consultative committee meeting held on 23.05.2003.

It was clarified that “the age on the date of application would be reckoned for employment on compassionate ground

so that candidates are not debarred on the ground of age at the time of appointment.” The circular has been produced

in course of evidence and marked as Exhibit W-5.

17. From the copy of Aadhaar Card produced as Exhibit W-7 it appears that the date of birth of Sunil Bouri is

recorded as 12.03.1970 at the time the candidature of Sunil Bouri was considered for employment on 05.08.1999 and

his age was approximately twenty-nine years. Therefore, he is entitled to be considered for his employment as a

dependent under the provisions of Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V, subject to his physical fitness.

18. In the light of my above discussion, I find that Sunil Bouri is entitled to employment under the prevailing

and accepted norms of NCWA applicable to the Management and employee of the Company. The Management of the

Company is hereby directed to consider the candidature of Sunil Bouri for his employment in the Company within a

fortnight (fourteen days) from date of notification of Award and provide him with suitable employment as a son of

deceased employee on compassionate ground.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the petitioner, Sunil Bouri. He is entitled for employment

under the Company. An award be drawn up in the light of the above finding. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be

communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

1998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 951.—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- 03/2020) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/115/2019 - आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2020) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L-22012/115/2019 -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. 03 OF 2020

PARTIES: Shital Bouri

Vs.

Management of Barmondia Colliery of M/s. ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: None.

For the Management:

Mrs. Swapna Basu, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.05.2023

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-

22012/115/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 30.01.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Barmondia Colliery under Salanpur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand raised by the General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress (HMS),

Asansol, for reinstatement of Shri Shital Bouri, Ex-UG Loader of Barmundia Colliery

under Salanpur Area of M/s. E.C.L. is justified? If so, what relief Shri Shital Bouri Ex-UG

Loader is entitled to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/115/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 30.01.2020 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 03 of 2020 was registered on 10.02.2020

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.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

1999

2. Mrs. Swapna Basu, learned advocate for M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has appeared and filed a copy of

letter dated 28.04.2023 issued by the Agent, Gourandi Group of Mines addressed to Advocate. She has also filed a

copy of letter dated 12.05.2016 issued by Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of Colliery mazdoor Congress

addressed to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol. The case is fixed up today for ex-parte hearing. On

perusal of the record, it appears that notice was sent to the General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress under

registered post for representing the workman, but the same has been returned unserved. No step has been taken on

behalf of workman, Shital Bouri.

3. Since 2020, the workman has not filed any written statement in this case. In Paragraph- 2 of the written

statement, the Management of Barmondia Colliery, Salanpur Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has stated that

no workman by the name of Shital Bouri with U.M. No. 603650 is posted at Barmondia Colliery under Salanpur Area

of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited. Therefore, the dispute raised by the Union in the name of Shital Bouri is improper

and is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the letter issued by Agent dated 28.04.2023, it has been reiterated that no person by the name of Shital

Bouri with U.M. No. 603650 has been found in any of the official records of the Colliery. In view of such statement

by the Management of Colliery and submission made by Mrs. Swapna Basu, learned advocate, the Industrial Dispute

referred to this Tribunal by order No. L-22012/115/2019-IR (CM-II) dated 30.01.2020 is dismissed.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is dismissed. An award be drawn up in the light of the above finding. Let copies of the

Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for

information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2023

का.आ. 952.—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

20/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-05-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/148/2004 - आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2023

S.O. 952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2005) 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 30/05/2023

[No. L- 22012/148/2004 -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. 20 OF 2005

PARTIES: Dependents of Late Kamruddin Mia

Vs.

Management of Lachipur Colliery of ECL

2000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

17.05.2023

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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/148/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 11.03.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited in denying payment of monetary compensation and employment

under N.C.W.A. VI to dependent brother of Late Kammruddin Mia, Pump Khalasi is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the dependent of deceased workman is entitled? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/148/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 11.03.2005 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 20 of 2005 was registered on 12.04.2005

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 dependents of Late Kamruddin Mia, ex-employee of Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern

Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) filed their written statement on 21.07.2006 through Mr. Rakesh

Kumar, Union representative of Koyala Mazdoor Congress. The Management of ECL filed their written statement in

this case on 03.01.2008. Several years have passed without the parties adducing any evidence. On 30.09.2015 Mst.

Mariyam Bibi, the wife of deceased workman was cross-examined in this case. No document relating to service of her

husband or correspondence with the Management of ECL for employment to the dependent was brought on record.

There was no regular Presiding Officer in this Tribunal from 21.11.2018 to 31.08.2022. It is only on 21.02.2023 the

witness was recalled for her re-examination and documents were admitted in evidence as Exhibit W-1 to W-10. The

witness was re-cross-examined on behalf of the Management and discharged. Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager

(Personnel), Lachipur Colliery of ECL (Management witness -1) examined on 21.02.2023 and was discharged after

his cross-examination.

It is contended by the dependents of the deceased employee that Late Kamruddin Mia a Pump Khalasi of

Lachipur Colliery died in harness on 12.10.1996. It is urged that as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement

(hereinafter referred to as NCWA) – V one dependent of Late Kamruddin Mia is entitled to get an employment. The

wife of Late Kamruddin Mia claimed employment for herself and submitted documents in support of her claim. The

Management of Lachipur Colliery processed her proposal and forwarded it to the Area Office. She was examined by

screening committee and was sent for her medical examination before the Area Medical Officer, who declared her as

unfit for employment. After receiving the report of Area Medical Officer, Mst. Mariyam Bibi, the wife of Late

Kamruddin Mia applied for providing employment to the younger brother of her husband. It is contended that as per

provisions of NCWA – V and VI, younger brother of her husband was entitled to get employment but the

Management of ECL did not process the proposal in violation of provisions of NCWA. Despite repeated requests

made by Mst. Mariyam Bibi for providing employment to her brother-in-law, i.e. the younger brother of Late

Kamruddin Mia, the company neither provide any employment to the wife nor to the younger brother. Due to such

violation of terms of NCWA an Industrial Dispute has been raised. According to Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA-V one

dependent of deceased employee is entitled to an employment. Furthermore, if a direct dependent is not found fit,

brother of the deceased employee can also be provided with employment. The dependent wife has contended that

Management has not paid any monetary compensation to her as per NCWA – V and VI. It is prayed that Mst.

Mariyam Bibi, the wife of Late Kamruddin Mia be paid monetary compensation till the younger brother of Late

Kamruddin Mia be provided with employment with all other consequential benefit.

Per contra, the case of Management, as disclosed in this written statement is that instant Reference is bad-in-

law and entirely misconceived. According to the Management of the employer company after death of Kamruddin

Mia his wife Mst. Mariyam Bibi applied for employment against the death of her husband. She was referred for Initial

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2001

Medical Examination by Medical Board to assess her fitness. After examination the Medical Board declared Mst.

Mariyam Bibi as unfit for employment. Accordingly, her claim was rejected and duly communicated to the her.

Thereafter Mst. Mariyam Bibi submitted claim for employment of on Nijamuddin Mia, brother of Late Kamruddin

Mia.

It is urged that according to the provisions of NCWA brother of a deceased employee can be provided with

employment only if there is no other direct dependent family member of the deceased employee. As Late Kamruddin

Mia left son and daughters as direct dependents, there is no scope for providing employment to the brother of

deceased employee as per guidelines of NCWA. The company has denied that as per NCWA – V and VI the younger

brother is not entitle to get employment due to presence of direct depended of the deceased.

The Management of the company denied the contention in of Paragraph – (7) of written statement filed on

behalf of the dependents of the workman that under Clause 9.4.0 of NCWA – V one dependent should be provide

with employment and if directed dependent is not found fit for job the young brother can be provided with

employment. It is urged that since the claim for employment was not found valid, the dependent of deceased

employee was not entitled to monetary compensation.

Both parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Mst. Mariyam Bibi is examined as workman

witness -1. In her evidence-in-chief she has stated on solemn affirmation that Kamruddin Mia, ex-Pump Operator of

Lachipur Colliery under Kajora Area was a permanent employee of the company and died on 12.10.1996 while in

service. She stated that she applied for employment in terms with NCWA – V and submitted required documents. On

the basis of her application, she was referred for medical examination to the Area Hospital where she was declared

unfit for employment. After receiving the report of Medical Officer, she applied for employment of her brother-in-

law, the younger brother of her husband which she claimed to be permissible under terms of NCWA but the

Management regretted her proposal for employment to the younger brother of her husband. She further stated that the

Management neither provided employment to the younger brother of her husband nor provided her monetary

compensation as per NCWA. In her evidence-in-chief on recall she deposed that she requested the company for

paying monetary compensation to her and employment to her husband’s brother but the same was not complied. Then

she requested the company for providing employment to her son Mohsin Ansari. The witness produced a copy of

Death Certificate of her husband which is marked as Exhibit W-1, a copy of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) of

Andal Police Station which is marked as Exhibit W-2, a copy of Post Mortem Report of her husband which is marked

as Exhibit W-3, a copy of letter dated 21.01.1997 by which she was called for medical examination at Central

Hospital, Kalla has been produced as Exhibit W-4, a copy of letter dated 02.04.1998 by which the Medical

Superintendent of Central Hospital, Kalla informed the Area Medical Officer for holding Echocardiography test

which is marked as Exhibit W-5, a copy of the letter dated 10.04.1998 by which the Manager, Lachipur was requested

to send her for Echocardiography test which is marked as Exhibit W-6, a copy of letter dated 02.06.1999 by which

the doctors declared Mst. Mariyam Bibi medically unfit for duty, produced as Exhibit W-7, reference of Mst.

Mariyam Bibi to the Apex Medical Board through letter dated 09.11.1998 is produced as Exhibit W-8, a copy of

application by Nijamuddin Mia, brother of my husband issued to the Agent, Lachipur Colliery for providing

employment is marked as Exhibit W-9, and a copy of No Objection letter issued by the family members in favour of

Mst. Mariyam Bibi (is produced as Exhibit W-10. In her cross-examination the witness deposed that she has four sons

of whom three are employed. She further deposed that she did not file any application before company for paying her

monetary compensation. She also stated that apart from submitting application for employment for herself and her

brother-in-law she did not submit any petition before the Management of the company for providing employment to

her son or monetary compensation for herself.

Mr. P. Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel), Lachipur Colliery has been examined on behalf of ECL as

Management witness-1. In his evidence-in-chief he has admitted that Late Kamruddin Mia was a permanent employee

of Lachipur Colliery and he died on 12.10.1996. His evidence-in-chief disclosed that Mst. Mariyam Bibi filed an

application praying for employment under the company but she was declared medically unfit for duty. It is

categorically stated that she did not file any petition claiming monetary compensation and that no monetary

compensation has been paid to her till date. The witness stated that none of the dependents of Late Kamruddin Mia

has been provided with employment as per NCWA. In course of cross-examination, Management witness-1 admitted

that the company did not inform Mst. Mariyam Bibi that she was entitled to any monetary compensation under the

provision of NCWA-IV. He also deposed that the company did not consider the prayer of Nijamuddin Mia, brother of

Late Kamruddin Mia for employment as dependent as there were direct dependents of the deceased workman. The

witness averred that employment is not provided to a secondary dependent.

The point for consideration is whether the dependent brother of Late Kamruddin Mia is entitled to

employment and whether the wife of deceased employee was entitled to any monetary compensation under NCWA-

VI.

10.

In the instant case Nijamuddin Mia, the brother of Late Kamruddin Mia has not appeared before this

Tribunal claiming employment as a dependent of late Kamruddin Mia. According to Clause 9.3.1 of NCWA-VI

employment would be provided to one dependent of the worker. Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI further lay down that :

2002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“the dependent for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter , son and legally

adopted son. If no such direct dependent is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-

in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased may be

considered to be the dependent of the deceased.”

11.

From the cross-examination of Mst. Mariyam Bibi (ww-1), I find that she has four sons, therefore, the

question of providing employment to Nijamuddin Mia as a dependent is not tenable under the provisions of Clause

9.3.3 of NCWA-VI.

12.

No application for employment for her son was submitted. It is also evident that the company had processed

the proposal for employment of Mst. Mariyam Bibi but she was declared unfit for employment, which is gathered

from Exhibit M-1 i.e. a report submitted by the committee members who held medical examination of Mst. Mariyam

Bibi at Central Hospital Kalla, ECL.

13.

The issue which now needs adjudication is whether Mst. Mariyam Bibi is entitled to any monetary

compensation on the death of her husband. Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI as well as NCWA-VI are relevant for this

purpose which provide as follows :

“(ii) In case of death/total permanent disablement due to causes other than mine accident and medical unfitness

under clause 9.4.0 if the female dependent is below the age of 45 years she will have the option either to accept the

monetary compensation of Rs.2000/- per month or employment.

In case the female dependent is above 45 years of age she will be entitled to monetary compensation and not to

employment.”

In the instant case Mst. Mariyam Bibi was found medically unfit. Though she was below forty-five years of age she is

entitled for monetary compensation till she attained the age of sixty years. In the present case Kamruddin Mia

died on 12.10.1996 in a road accident, on G. T. Road near Kajora More. The Postmortem Report has been produced

as Exhibit W-2 and his Death Certificate as Exhibit W-1.

14.

On a conspectus of the facts and circumstances read together with the provisions of NCWA, I find that Mst.

Mariyam Bibi who was declared unfit for employment by the Medical Board of the company is entitled to get

monetary compensation from 12.10.1996 till she attains sixty years of age.

15.

I therefore hold and direct the Management of Lachipur Colliery of ECL to pay monetary compensation to

Mst. Mariyam Bibi, dependent wife of Late Kamruddin Mia at the prevailing rate from the date of death of her

husband till she attains sixty years of age. The direction be complied within three months from the date of

Notification of the Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that an Award be drawn up in favour of Mst. Mariyam Bibi. The Management of Lachipur Colliery of ECL

is directed to pay the monetary compensation at the prevailing rate from the date of death of her husband,

(12.10.1996) till she attained sixty years of age. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be communicated to the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2023

का.आ. 953.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

63/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/307/2005 - आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2023

S.O. 953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2003

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-22012/307/2005 -IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 12^th day of April, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 63/2006

Between:

The Vice-President

(Sri S. Satyanaryana),

Singareni Collieries Employees Union (CITU),

C-30, Bazaar Area,

Bellampalli – 504251.

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri, Adilabad Distt.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, M. Govind &Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/307/2005-IR(CM-II) dated

9.10.2006 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal

between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in

reducing two annual increments with cumulative effect in respect of Sri Patha Padma Rao

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 63/2006 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the workman Sri Patha Padma Rao joined the service of the Respondent on 23.11.1981

and presently working as support man. While working so, the respondent issued the charge sheet dated 3.06.2002

alleging that while working on 15.05.2002 in II Shift, he instructed to withdraw supports at 4^th Dip slice under the

personal supervision of Shri V.B.Satya Raju, Sr. Mining Sirdar, and have started the withdrawal operation without

inspection, testing and personal supervision of Mining Sirdar and Petitioner has failed to use the proper tolls which

resulted in fatal injuries to Sri Palkapati Ramesh and Pittal Ramachander, which amounts to violation of provisions of

Regulation 110 of CMR 1957 and constitutes misconduct under Company's Standing Order No.25(16). It is

submitted that the workman reported for duty on 15.05.2002 in II Shift and the Over Man by name Mr. Chary who is

in charge of assigning the work to the workman, he has assigned the work to the workman and five other workmen

to remove the supports under the supervision of Mr. V.B. Satya Raju, Mining Sirdar. It is further submitted that the

said Mining Sirdar informed the workman and the other 5 co-workers that the roof condition is good and further

2004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

instructed the workman to start the work and to complete the work by 7 p.m. It is submitted that by the time he

reached the work spot the other workmen already removed 2 cogs and after removing the 3^rd cog by the concerned

workman and it is noticed by the Petitioner that the roof is having cracks and it is decided to leave the 5^th prop. The

Petitioner further submitted that mean while Sri P. Ramesh along with Sri P. Ramachander went to remove the 5^th

prop, without listening the workman’s instruction that there is a danger in removing the 5^th prop and they sustained

fatal injuries due to the falling of roof. Petitioner submitted that they are using the proper tools while working and the

two workmen sustained the injuries only due to their negligence. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the

Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner gave explanation dated 7.6.2002 to the charge sheet dated 3.6.2002

explaining true incident, correct facts and disputed the charges as false and baseless. Petitioner categorically stated

the same to the Enquiry Officer. A stage managed enquiry was conducted wherein all the reasonable opportunity was

denied to the workman to participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer failed to explain the procedure of the

enquiry to the workman and recoded the proceedings of the enquiry in English even though the workman the

workman requested the Enquiry Officer to record the proceedings in Telugu. The entire procedure of the enquiry is

illegal, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore the enquiry is liable to

vitiated. It is submitted that during enquiry, Management has not examined the concerned persons Sri Chary,

overman who assigned the work to the worker and Sri Satya Raju, Mining Sirdar, who supervised the work of the

workman personally and who was present at the spot and who informed that the roof condition is good. The

Management has examined those persons as their witnesses who were neither present at the spot nor they have given

any instructions to the workman. It is submitted that the Petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to present Sri

Chary, and Sri Satya Raju but the Enquiry Officer declined the workman request which is against the principles of

natural justice. The statement of Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. The

Petitioner’s witness Sri M. Gangaiah categorically stated that the Mining Sirdar has stated that the roof is in good

condition, which shows that as per the orders of the Mining Sirdar, the work is carried out by the workman. While

passing the orders the Respondent has totally failed to consider the enquiry made by the Dy. Director of Mines Safety

Hyderabad Region No.II on 15.5.2002 wherein it is clearly revealed that the supports been withdrawn with due

permission from the Sirdar and a safety pro withdrawer been used as required by condition No.a(1) and a(3) of the

standing order for withdrawal of supports framed under regulation 110 of the coal Mines Regulations, 1957 and the

support men adhered to the provisions of the regulations and order made there under as required by the provisions of

Regulation 3891(a) of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may answer the

reference in favor of the concern workman, by set a siding the order dated 2.4.2003 and direct the respondent to add

two increments and pay the difference of salary and all the consequential benefits to the workman Sri Patha Padma

Rao with interest in the interest of justice.

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is to submit that the workman concerned Sri Patha Padma Rao was appointed into the services of the

Respondent Company on 23.11.1981 and he is presently working as support man at KK.1 Incline, Mandamari Area.

It is submitted that the workman concerned Mr.Patha Padma Rao, Support man, EC 2227836, KK.1 Incline, was

charge sheeted vide charge sheet o.MMR/KK1/R/007/58, dated 03.06.2002 and the extract of the charge sheet is

reproduced below:

"You are charged with the following offence(s) noted hereunder.

On 15.05.2002 in II shift, you were instructed to withdraw supports at 4^th Dip slice (i.e. 41 No. dip slice) of

56LS/42 Dip in depillaring panel No.20 in 3 seam, under the personal supervision of Shri V.B. Satya Raju, Sr. Mining

Sirdar. It is reported that you have started the withdrawal operations before inspection, testing and personal

supervision of Mining Sirdar. Further during withdrawal operations you have not used proper tools which resulted in

fatal injuries to Sri Palkapati Ramesh and Sri Pittala Ramchander at about 4.30 p.m.

The above act of yours amounts to violation of provisions of Regulation 110 of CMR 1957 and constitute

misconduct under Company's Standing Order No. 25.16 which reads as follows:

“25.16: Any breach of Mines Act, 1952 or any other Act or any rules or regulations or bylaws there under."

It is submitted that workman concerned was on duty on 15.05.2002 in II shift. As Support man he is

supposed to undertake the removal of supports under the supervision of Mining Sirdar. As per the statements of the

Management witnesses during the course of enquiry, it was established that the workman concerned went down the

mine in II shift on 15.05.2002 and had undertaken the withdrawal work without the presence of Mining Sirdar.

During the course of cross examination by the management witness, the workman concerned admitted that he did not

see the Mining Sirdar at the work spot and did not ask any of his crew members as to whether Mining Sirdar had

inspected the roof or not. He further admitted that withdrawal work cannot be carried out in the absence of Mining

Sirdar and that at no time withdrawal work was undertaken in the absence of Sirdar. He also admitted that it is not

lawful to carryout withdrawal work without the Sirdar. The WW-1, Mr. Mothe Gangaiah, Support man, during cross

examination by management witness, had categorically stated that even if the Mining Sirdar advises them to undertake

withdrawal work, it does not mean that they should work in the absence of Sirdar and that they should take Sirdar

along with them and should work in his presence. During further cross examination of WW-1 Mr. M.Gangaiah clearly

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2005

admitted that he could never complete the quantum of work out of his experience in the past by 4.30 p.m., as was done

by the crew on 15.05.2002 even by applying the safety tools. From the statements of Management witnesses and also

replies by the workman concerned and his witness in the cross examination, clearly indicate the fact that the workman

undertook withdrawal work in the absence of Mining Sirdar and without applying proper tools. It is submitted that

the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice. The concerned workman has

fully participated in the enquiry. After conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report with a finding

that the charges leveled against the delinquent are proved beyond doubt. Copies of the enquiry report and proceedings

were sent to the workman vide letter dated 27.09.2002 to enable them to make a representation, if any, against the

findings of the enquiry officer within seven days of receipt of the same. The workman has received the letter and

submitted his representation dated 07.10.2002. The Disciplinary Authority carefully considered the enquiry report

and all connected documents and representation submitted by the employee and imposed penalty of stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 02.04.2003. Further, Sri Patha Padmarao filed an appeal dated

21.04.2003 before the Director (Personnel, Administration & Welfare) and the Appellate Authority to review the

order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate authority has gone through the grounds raised in the

Appeal, enquiry report and proceedings and also his fast record and found that there are no extenuating circumstances

to set aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the

Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 09-09-2003. It is submitted that the employee has filed a Writ Petition No.

27351 of 2003 praying the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. to quash the order dated 02.4.2003 passed by the Disciplinary

Authority and also the order dated 09.09.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority and consequently to direct the

respondents to release all the increments. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.10.2003 dismissed the writ

petition as withdrawn. It is to submit that the workman concerned did not use proper tools. This fact is very much

revealed by the WW1 during cross examination. It is to add that the I1 shift commences at 3.00 PM and ends at 11.00

PM. In his deposition the workman concerned informed that they have withdrawn three cogs and four props and

they were transporting the chock pieces of the removed cogs and that the accident took place by 4.30 PM. The

Workman Witness No.1 in the cross examination specifically admitted that he could never complete the same

quantum of work in his experience in the past by 4.30 PM as was done by the crew on 15.05.2002 in II shift by

applying safety tools. This clearly establishes the fact that the workman concerned did not use proper tools while

undertaking withdrawal work. It is to submit that the charge sheeted employee submitted his written explanation

dated 07.06.2002 to the charge sheet stating that five Support men including the workman concerned were engaged

for withdrawing supports at 4^th Dip slice of 56 LS/42 Dip under the personal supervision of Sri V.B.Satya Raju, Sr.

Mining Sirdar and that the said Sirdar informed that there was no bad roof and advised to start work. He further added

that the Mining Sirdar went to Junction and that they carried the work as per his instructions and used the tools for

withdrawing. After removing 03 cogs, they left the prop. Since the explanation was found to be incomplete and not

satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered. The contention of the petitioner that a stage managed enquiry was conducted

wherein reasonable opportunity was denied to the charge leveled against the workman concerned is not correct.

Enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer giving full and fair opportunity to the delinquent on 08.07.2002,

09.07.2002 and 18.07.2002, wherein the charge sheeted employee participated fully and he was given every

opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses and to produce his witnesses. The workman concerned did

not choose to cross examine the management witnesses and produced his witness Mr. Mothe Gangaiah. The Enquiry

Officer at the commencement of the enquiry proceedings explained the enquiry procedure in Telugu to the charge

sheeted employee, which was accepted by the workman concerned and affixed his signature on the proceedings. He

did not dispute this aspect at any point of time, except in this petition. Further, at every stage the Enquiry Officer

explained the contents of the enquiry proceedings to the workman concerned in Telugu and the workman having

satisfied that the same were recorded correctly, affixed his signature and he did not dispute the same and did not

object for recording the proceedings in English. Even when the workman concerned was supplied a copy of the

enquiry report and proceedings also he did not raise any objection on this score. The contention of the petitioner that

the entire procedure of enquiry is illegal, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of principal of natural justice and

liable to be vitiated is incorrect. It is to submit that the overman Mr.Chary and Sr. Mining Sirdar Mr.V.B.Satya Raju

who were on duty on 15.5.2002 in II shift, too were issued charge sheets for their fault as supervisors and separate

enquiries were instituted against them on the charges leveled against them for the accident that took place on

15.5.2002 and hence these two employees were not examined in the enquiry conducted on the charge leveled against

Mr.Patha Padma Rao. The further contention of the petitioner that the he requested the Enquiry Officer to present Mr.

Chary, Overman and Mr.Satya Raju, Mining Sirdar but the enquiry officer declined the request of the workman is

incorrect as there was not such request. The statement of the workman concerned before the Enquiry Officer

remained un-rebutted and unchallenged is incorrect. The witness on behalf of workman concerned though claimed

that he heard the Mining Sirdar Mr.Satya Raju telling that the roof condition was good, in the cross examination he

accepted that this does not mean they should work in the absence of Mining Sirdar and confirmed that he never

undertook withdrawal work in the absence of Mining Sirdar. The enquiry by Dy. Director of Mines Safety,

Hyderabad Region-II is different from that of domestic enquiry. In the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry

Officer the charge leveled against the workman was established. The allegation that on the basis of perverse findings

of Enquiry Officer the respondent mechanically passed the order of deferment of two annual increments with

cumulative effect is illegal etc. is incorrect. The charge leveled was proved in the domestic enquiry which was

2006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

conducted following the principles of natural justice and the workman concerned participated fully in the enquiry.

The misconduct committed by the workman concerned and proved against him being serious in nature, it deserved

severe punishment, but considering the service of the workman concerned and with a view to provide him an

opportunity to correct himself and improve his capabilities, the respondent management took lenient view and impose

the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect due to the workman concerned from 01.03.2003 and

01.03.2004 vide penalty order No.MMR/PER/D/072/1277 dated 02.04.2003. In view of the above, it is prayed that

this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

As the Petitioner workman conceded the validity of domestic enquiry, the domestic enquiry conducted in the

present case is held legal and valid on 5.4.2013.

Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties under Sec.11 A of the Act as well as perused

written arguments.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties and arguments advanced by them following points

emerges for determination in this matter:-

Whether, the inquiry proceeding has been conducted in fair and proper manner and proper opportunity of

hearing has been afforded to the workman or not?

II.

Whether action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in reducing two annual

increments with cumulative effect in respect of Sri Patha Padma Rao is legal and justified?

III.

To what relief the workman is entitled for?

Findings:

Points No.I & II: First and foremost question arises in this matter is whether the inquiry proceeding has

been conducted in fair and proper manner or not and proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner

workman or not during the inquiry. Although Petitioner has conceded the legality and validity of domestic enquiry

on 5.4.2013 even then, it is duty of the Court to examine this question on merits. The petitioner has submitted that a

staged managed inquiry was conducted by respondent management wherein all reasonable opportunity has been

denied to the workman to participate in the inquiry. Petitioner further submits that the inquiry officer failed to explain

the procedure of the inquiry to the workman and recorded the proceedings of the inquiry in English even though the

workman requested the inquiry officer to record the proceedings in Telugu. The entire procedure of the inquiry is

illegal, unjust and contrary to law and in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore inquiry in liable to be

initiated. It is also submitted that management has not examined concerned persons Sri Chary, overman who assigned

the work to the worker and Sri Satya Raju, Mining Sirdar who supervised the work of workman personally and who

was present at the spot and who informed the roof condition is good. The petitioner further submits that management

has examined those persons as their witnesses who were neither present at the spot nor they have given any

instructions to the workman. Petitioner further submits that he requested the inquiry officer to examine Sri Chary and

Sri Satya Raju during the inquiry but the Inquiry Officer declined the workman request which is against the principle

of natural justice. Hence inquiry is liable to be initiated for the material irregularity.

On the other hand, respondent submitted that the contention of the petitioner that a stage managed inquiry

was conducted wherein opportunity was denied to the workman to participate in the inquiry is not correct. Inquiry was

conducted by the inquiry officer giving full and fair opportunity to the delinquent on 8^th July, 2002, 9^th July, 2002

and 18^th July, 2002, wherein chargesheeted employee participated fully and he was given every opportunity to cross

examine the management witnesses and to produce his witness. The workman concerned didn't choose to cross

examine the management witness and produce his witness Mr. Mothe Gangaiah. The inquiry officer at the

commencement of the inquiry proceedings explained the inquiry proceedings in telugu to the chargesheeted employee

which was accepted by the workman concerned and he also affixed his signature on the proceedings. Respondent

further submits that the petitioner didn't dispute this aspect at any point of time except in this petition, it is further

submitted that every stage the inquiry officer explained the contents of the inquiry proceedings to the workman

concerned in telugu and the workman having satisfied that the same was recorded correctly affixed his signature and

didn't dispute the same and didn't object for recording the proceedings in english. Even when the workman concerned

was supplied a copy of the inquiry report and proceedings also he didn't raise any objection to this score. Respondent

submitted that the contention to the petitioner, the entire procedure of inquiry is illegal, contrary to law and in

violation of principle of natural justice and liable to be vitiated, is incorrect. Respondent further submits that Mr.

Chary, Overman and Mr. V B Satyaraju, Mining Sirdar who were on duty on 15^th May, 2002, in second shift were

also issued chargesheets for their fault as supervisors and separate inquiries were instituted against them on the charge

level against them. Hence, these 2 employees were not examined in the inquiry conducted on the charge leveled

against Mr Patha Padmarao. It is also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he requested an inquiry

officer to examine these two employees and the inquiry officer declined his request is totally incorrect as there was no

such request made by the workman. It is further submitted that the charge leveled against the workman was proved in

the domestic inquiry which was conducted following the principle of natural justice and the workman concerned

participated fully in the inquiry.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2007

In the context of examining the legality and validity of domestic inquiry in the light of principle laid down by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Work Limited vs The Workman A.I.R. 1963 P. 1914, wherein apex

court held:-

An inquiry can't be said to have been properly held unless:-

(a) The employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him

(b) The witnesses are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges

(c) The employee is given a fair opportunity to examine the witnesses

(d) He is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defense if he so wishes on any

relevant matter and

(e) The inquiry officer recorded his findings with reasons for the same in his report.

Now, we proceed to examine whether the inquiry officer in the present matter has followed the aforesaid principles as

laid down by Apex Court while conducting the inquiry against the delinquent workman.

(a)

The perusal of the record of inquiry proceedings goes to reveal that the charge sheet dated 3^rd June, 2002

was served upon the petitioner and he received the chargesheet and submitted in response to the chargesheet, his

explanation dated 7th June, 2002. Thus, it's proved that the charge sheet was served upon the delinquent and during

the proceeding he didn't plead guilty of the charge leveled against him. This point No. (a) is decided in favor of the

management and against the workman.

(b), (c) & (d) : The perusal of the inquiry proceedings reveals that the respondent management during the inquiry

proceedings has examined two witnesses, T Venkat Ram Reddy, Safety Officer and Sri V Sitaramaiah, Under

Manager. Both the witnesses were examined in the presence of a charge -sheeted employee. Inquiry officer afforded

to charge sheeted employee for cross examination opportunity from these two witnesses but the delinquent

employee refused to avail of it. Further, the delinquent employee has also examined in defense during the inquiry

himself as a witness as well as Mr. Mothe Gangaiah, Supportman. Thus, it is amply proved that the inquiry officer

has followed the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for legal and fair inquiry. Both the Management

witnesses have been examined in the presence of delinquent employee. Thus, it cannot be said that no fair

opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself.

Thus, Point No. (b), (c) & (d) are decided accordingly.

(e). The close scrutiny and perusal of the inquiry proceedings and the reports of the inquiry officer Delineate that the

inquiry officer has discussed all the material evidence produced in enquiry and he has given reasoned findings in his

report. There is no ambiguity or any illegality of non-consideration of material evidence by the inquiry officer. The

findings of the inquiry officer is based on the evidence with cogent reasons, as such no fault can be found in the

findings of inquiry officer.

Thus, Point (e) is decided accordingly.

Therefore, the tribunal is of the opinion that domestic inquiry conducted in the present case is legal and

valid, no fault can be found in it. Point No.(e) is decided accordingly.

10. Points No.II & III:

The Petitioner submitted that while the concerned workman was working on 15^th May,

2002 in second shift, he was instructed to withdraw support at 4th dip slice under the personal supervision of Sri V B

Satyaraju, Senior Mining Sirdar but workman started the withdrawal operation without inspection, testing and

personal supervision of Mining Sirdar and he has also failed to use the proper tools which resulted in fatal injuries to

Sri Palkapati Ramesh and Pittak Ramchandra which amounts to violation of the provision of regulation 110 of CMR

1957 and constitutes misconduct under companies standing order no. 251 (16). Petitioner further submits that he

reported for duty on 15th May, 2002 in second shift and overman Mr Chary who is in charge of the assigning the work

to the workman, he has assigned the work to the concerned workman and 5 other workman of removing the supports

under the supervision of Mr V B Satyaraju, Mining Sirdar. The Mining Sirdar informed the concerned workman and

other 5 coworkers that the roof of 4^th dip where the removal of support of the roof was assigned to the workman, that

the roof condition is good and he instructed the workman to start the work and complete the work by 7:30 pm. It's

also submitted that all the workman took the tools to go on the work inside the pit but the concerned workman axe

was loosed and to tighten the same he went to blacksmith and got it repaired and when he returned back around 4:30

pm Mining Sirdar left the place and as per instruction of Mining Sirdar, petitioner along with coworker went inside

the pit for removing the support where other workers already withdrawn two cogs and 3^rd cog was also removed but

the Mining Sirdar wasn't present at the work spot. It is further submitted that, when the petitioner workman inquired

with P Ramesh, the co worker, whether they have tested the roof, he informed the petitioner that the roof was tested

and in good condition. After removing the third cog, the 4^th cog also dislodged and at that time they saw a crack and

they decided to leave the 4^th cog. It is also submitted that the petitioner workman stated to Mr.P. Ramesh who died

2008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the accident not to remove 5^th cog as there's a crack in the roof but without listening the workman he along with P

Ramchandra removed the cog and the layer of the roof fell down on them and they died. It is submitted that the

statement of the workman during the inquiry remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. It is also submitted that it is the

duty of Mining Sirdar at the time of removing the cogs of the slab but the mining Sirdar has given the instruction that

the roof is under good condition and has to be removed and left the place by 7:30 pm.

11.

On the other hand, respondent submitted that the workman concerned was on duty on 15th May, 2002 in

second shift. The workman concerned was on duty on 15.05.2002 in II shift. As Support man he is supposed to

undertake the removal of supports under the supervision of Mining Sirdar. As per the statements of the Management

witnesses during the course of enquiry, it was established that the workman concerned went down the mine in 11 shift

on 15.05.2002 and had undertaken the withdrawal work without the presence of Mining Sirdar. During the course of

cross examination by the management witness, the workman concerned admitted that he did not see the Mining Sirdar

at the work spot and did not ask any of his crew members as to whether Mining Sirdar had inspected the roof or not.

He further admitted that withdrawal work cannot be carried out in the absence of Mining Sirdar and that at no time

withdrawal work was undertaken in the absence of Sirdar. He also admitted that it is not lawful to carry out

withdrawal work without the Sirdar. The WW1 Mr. Mothe Gangaiah, Support man during cross examination by a

management witness, had categorically stated that even if the Mining Sirdar advises them to undertake withdrawal

work, it does not mean that they should work in the absence of Sirdar and that they should take Sirdar along with

them and should work in his presence. During further cross examination of WW-1 Mr. M.Gangaiah clearly admitted

that he could never complete the quantum of work out of his experience in the past by 4.30 p.m., as was done by the

crew on 15.05.2002 even by applying the safety tools. The statements of Management witnesses and also the replies

given by the workman concerned and his witness in the cross examination, clearly indicate the fact that the workman

concerned Sri Patha Padma Rao, undertook withdrawal work in the absence of Mining Sirdar and without applying

proper tools.

12.

The main allegation against the petitioner is that when he was on duty on 15^th May, 2002 in second shift he

was instructed to withdraw the support at 4^th dip slice in depillaring panel No. 20 in 3 scene under the personal

supervision of Sri V B Satyaraju, Senior Mining Sirdar, but in violation of companies Standing Order No. 25.16 he

started the withdrawal operations before inspection and testing and personal supervision of mining Sirdars. It is

further alleged that during withdrawal operation he has not used proper tools which resulted in fatal injuries to Sri

Palkapati Ramesh and Sri Pittala Ramchandra at about 4:30 pm, thereby violating the provision of regulation 110 of

CMR 1957 committed misconduct.

13.

During inquiry two witnesses, Sri T Venkatraman Reddy, Safety Officer, KK first in chain and Sri V

Sitaramaiah, Under Manager, KK1 in chain was examined. Both witnesses in their statements have proved the

allegation that on 15th May, 2002 in the second shift, delinquent Sri Patha Padmarao, Support man along with other

five Supportmen was engaged for withdrawing of supports in 20 panels depillaring 4^th dip, has alleged in the charge

and after meeting the Sirdar on surface, the petitioner and other supportmen gone to underground and reach the

workspot by 4:00 pm. Witness further states that Sri P Padmarao, Support Majdur reached the work spot by 4:15 pm

and the other Co-Supoortman started withdrawing the work before the arrival of Mining Sirdars to the work spot. Sri

Padmarao also started work with Co-workman at about 4:30 pm. When Sirdar Sri V B Satyaraju reached the work

spot he told P Ramesh, not to withdraw the 5^th prop which was under the bed roof. Sri Palakatti Ramesh went

hurriedly and withdrew the 5^th Prop then a bedroof stone patch fell on Sri Ramchandra and Sri Palakatti Ramesh

inflicting the fatal injuries. Then the Manager Sirdar immediately came to the work spot from junction of 42 dip. Till

then Shri Padmarao, Supportman didn't see the Mining Sirdar at work spot, thus as per statement of the witness Mr. T

Venkatraman, the petitioner workman as per rule was expected to initiate the work of withdrawal of dip in the

presence of and under direction of V B Satyaraju, Mining Sirdar, but without waiting for direction and arrival of

Mining Sirdar the petitioner started the work of withdrawal of the dip along with co-workers which resulted in fatal

accident and consequently death of two supportmen namely, Ramchandra and Palakatti Ramesh occurred at the spot.

Similarly the other witness Sri V Sitaramaiah has also stated in support of the charge. Although, the delinquent

workman, the Petitioner was afforded the cross examination opportunity from these witnesses but he didn't avail of it

therefore the statement of these witnesses in support of the charge that Petitioner along with co-workers carried out

the work of removing the dip in the absence and supervision of Mining Sirdar is uncontroverted and un-rebutted.

Further, the petitioner in defense has examined himself as WW1 and in cross examination he stated that he didn't see

the Mining Sirdar when he reached the work spot and he didn't ask any of crew members that mining sirdar inspected

and cleared the work spot, further he states in cross examination that withdrawing work can't be carried out in the

absence of Sirdar. In response to the question that did he ever undertook the withdrawing work without Sirdar on the

post, he replied, "No, without Mining Sirdar never withdrawing work was engaged". Further, witness states that "No,

it's not lawful to do withdrawing work in the absence of Mining Sirdar". Thus, from the above statement of the

delinquent workman it clearly establishes that he carried out the work of withdrawing the 4^th dip slice at the work

spot, on 15.5.2002 and thereby he committed violation of company's standing order which caused fatal accident.

14.

Further, another witness examined in the defense namely, Mr. Mothe Gangaiah, he also stated in cross

examination that "I never did withdrawing work in the absence of Mining Sirdar and they should take Sirdar along

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2009

with them and to do work in the presence of Sirdar." In reference to the tool used by the workman for the work, and

time of work, witness states that "No, I could never complete the work in question. In my experience in the past by

4:30 pm." Therefore, delinquent workman himself as well as WW1 has admitted that they started the work at spot in

the absence of Mining Sirdar which was done in violation of the company's standing orders. Therefore, the inquiry

officer on the basis of appreciation of evidence collected during the inquiry arrived at conclusion that charge framed

against the delinquent workman stands proved and consequently submitted his reasoned report. The petitioner

couldn't produce any evidence that ever he asked or moved any application before the inquiry officer to summon and

examine any other witnesses. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner at this stage regarding non examination of

the other witnesses is untenable. As far as the contention of the petitioner is concerned that Mining Sirdar was not

examined who has committed the grave misconduct and crime, Respondent submitted that the Mining Sirdar has also

been chargesheeted for his dereliction in performance of the duties. However, it was open to the petitioner to

examine co-support person who were doing the work at spot on that day along with him, but he didn't dare to

produce them as a witness in support of his claim. Therefore, his plea in this regard is not acceptable.

15.

Since, the validity of the domestic inquiry has been held legal and valid, now we proceed to examine

whether the action of management in termination of the petitioner from the employment is legal and justified. In this

regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank has held that, “once it is held

that domestic inquiry is legal and proper the next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the

punishment imposed on petitioner is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.”

16.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Coal India Ltd vs Mukul Kumar Chaudhary, Civil Appeal No.

5762-5763, date of decision 24th August, 2001, has laid down the test for deciding proportionality of the

punishment imposed and held that: "One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of

punishment would be:- Would any reasonable employer have imposed such a punishment in such circumstances?

Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measures, magnitude and degree of

misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before punishment."

17.

From the foregone discussion it is clear that the charges against the Petitioner were held proved in domestic

inquiry. The charges levelled against the Petitioner were of serious nature because due to his misconduct fatal

accident occurred at work spot and resulted in death of two co-workers. Thus, there was a gross dereliction in

performance of the duties by the delinquent workman and no employer would ever allow or tolerate such conduct of

his employee while on duty. Therefore, the charges proved being serious in nature against Petitioner, even then the

respondent management taking a lenient view and affording the opportunity to Petitioner to improve his conduct, has

decided to impose the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Thus, it cannot be said that the

imposed punishment imposed upon the petitioner for his misconduct by the Respondent was disproportionate.

Thus, the Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.

18. Point No.III: In view of the finding in foregone points the petitioner’s claim is found to be devoid of any merit

and he is not entitled to any relief and claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

In view of the discussion and finding given in Points No.I, II and III, the claim petition of the petitioner

found devoid of any merit. Hence, it fails and is accordingly dismissed and the action of the management of M/s

Singreni Collieries Company Ltd in reducing two annual increments with cumulative effect in respect of petitioner Sri

Patha Padmarao is held legal and justified. The claim petition of petitioner is dismissed. As such, the Petitioner is not

entitled to any relief as prayed for.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictate to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 12^th

day of April, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2023

का.आ. 954.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj नेिनल एजवएिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 56/2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 11012/53/2010- आई आर (सी. एम-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2023

S.O. 954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 56/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

National Aviation of India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-11012/53/2010 -IR(CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 16^th day of March, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2011

Between:

The Regional Secretary,

Air Corporations Employees’ Union,

Indian Airlines Ltd., Begumpet,

Hyderabad – 500 016.

…..Petitioner Union

AND

The General Manager (Engg.)

Air India, NACIL, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-16.

The Executive Director (South),

Air India, NACIL, Airlines House,

Meenambakkam,

Chennai – 600 017.

…. Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Ch. Indrasena Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent :

M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy, V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-11012/53/2010-IR(CM-I) dated 24.8.2011

referred the following dispute between the management of Air India, NACIL and their workmen under section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of National Aviation Company of India Ltd.,

Hyderabad in deduction of wages and withholding of PLI of Shri S.S. Srinivas and 62 others

for 25^th and 26^th May, 2010 is justified and legal? To what relief the workman concerned are

entitled to?”

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2011

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 56/2011 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

Due to non-appearance of the Petitioner union, a no dispute award was passed dated 26.12.2016, when case

was posted for Petitioner’s evidence and after giving sufficient opportunity.

Petitioner filed IA 34/2017 requesting to reopen the case and permit the Petitioner union to contest the

matter on merits in the interest of justice. IA allowed and ID 56/2011 was reopened for Petitioner’s evidence. But

Petitioner union did not turn up for adducing evidence till date. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner

seems to be not interested in pursuing his case and as such a no claim award is given against the petitioner union.

As such, a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 16^th day of

March, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2023

का.आ. 955.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय ाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 21/2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22011/7/2010- आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2023

S.O. 955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L- 22011/7/2010-IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 16^th day of March, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2010

Between:

Smt. K. Laxmamma & 11 others,

2012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

D/o Kondappa,

Opp. Railway Station,

Zangalapallil (RS), Kandukur (Post)

Anantpur -515721

..….Petitioner

AND

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Haka Bhavan, Nampally,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri R. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate

For the Respondent: M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy & Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22011/7/2010-IR(CM.II) dated 7.6.2010

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of Food Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India, BSC, Zanngalpalli by not

regularizing the services of Smt. K. Laxmamma and 11 others (as per list enclosed) w.e.f.

10.9.1984 is legal and justified? To what relief are the workmen concerned entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 21/2010 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned and the Petitioner entered appearance. Petitioner filed claim statement and Respondent filed counter

statement.

2. Both parties are absent on the date of hearing. Docket reveals that the case is fixed for Petitioner’s evidence

since 11.10.2017 and number of opportunities were provided to petitioner(s) for adducing the evidence.

Petitioner(s) or WW1 did not appear in the case nor adduced any evidence. Hence, the claim of the Petitioners for

direction to Respondent to regularize their services is not substantiated with any evidence.

3. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner(s) seems to be not interested in pursuing the case and as such

a no claim award is given against the workman/petitioner. As such, a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 16^th day of

March, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2023

का.आ. 956.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k – सि – Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 151/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22013/01/2023-आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2013

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2023

S.O. 956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 151/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-22013/01/2023-IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 31^st day of March, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 151/2013

Between:

Sri Akula Ramanna,

S/o Pochaiah,

C/o P. Rama Krishna,

Advocate,

H.No. 9/37 Bahar, Saharastates,

Mansoorabad,

Hyderabad-68.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur Area, Srirampur,

Adilabad district.

The Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Srirampur No.1 Incline

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri P. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Akula Ramanna who worked as General mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No. SRP/PER/13008/292 dated 25.1.2010 issued by Respondent

No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner

into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other

attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Floating Badli Filler vide office order

No.PBPA/261.V/4242 dated 7.4.1987, w.e.f. 30.4.1987. The Petitioner competed with hundreds of candidates o f his

batch, in running for five kilo metres on 9.2.1987 and won his lively hood and was appointed in the company on

2.5.1987. Subsequently confirmed and also sanctioned two additional SPRAs w.e.f. 1.1.1998 and 1.1.2005, in

addition to annual SPRAs on the basis of his performance, as he was regular and sincere to his duties. During the

2014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

year 2004, he suffered Typhoid and was hospitalized . It is submitted that Petitioner used to attend duty from his

village Itikala Laxettipet Mandal, Adilabad Dist., 25 kms from work place. Then he requested Management for

allotment of quarters as per his seniority. But despite his eligibility, though his juniors were allotted quarters, the

Respondent did not allot quarters to the Petitioner. While the matter stood thus, charge sheet No. SRP.

/R/8/2009/1171, was issued alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 2008, Standing order

25.25. Petitioner submitted explanation dated 07.05.2009, submitting that for the last two years he was suffering

from ill-health and as such he was unable to attend duty regularly, but not absenting intentionally. His explanation

was not considered by 2^nd respondent. An Enquiry was fixed on 23.05.2009 at 3-30 pm and completed on the same

day in an hour. It is submitted that document quoted /referred in the enquiry proceedings was neither shown nor

supplied to Petitioner. Petitioner further submits that his LTI was obtained on different written papers and was

allowed for duty further. It is submitted that in his reply to show cause notice, Petitioner submitted that he intimated

about his ailment and treatment from time to time and submitted medical certificates while reporting, and that he was

not allowed for duty number of days though he attended duty. But his representation was in vain, the petitioner was

dismissed vide order No SRP/PER/13008/292 Dated 25.01.2010. It is submitted that the action of the respondent in

dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The charge

sheet was dated nil, not signed and incomplete when issued. The enquiry is an empty formality and mechanical

procedure was adopted to dismiss the petitioner and to reduce piece rated and aged workers. Had the enquiry been

conducted as per the principles of natural justice, the submissions of the petitioner would have been rebutted. The

enquiry was not conducted in Telugu. Enquiry Officer in his report clearly conformed, it is a common or admitted or

undisputed fact that the petitioner absented from January to December-2008 due to his ill health. As a result memo of

settlement dated 09.08.2011 which was signed by the company and agreed to consider re- appointment of dismissed

employees. The petitioner also submitted application along with others, after scrutiny he was called for interview also

at Head Office Kothagudem, on 26.04.2012, at 9.00 am, but in vain. Having utilized his strength and health for 20

years, when his age advanced, instead of providing any better condition of service, weeding him out of employment,

when he fell sick for a certain tenure, his inability to be regular for duty, was considered as reasonable cause for

absence by the respondents to dismiss the Petitioner. The ultimate and capital punishment of dismissal from service

is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the charges alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner is the sole broad-

winner in his family consisting of his wife and three children. The petitioner has not gainfully employed elsewhere

from the date of dismissal till date. Hence, it is prayed to modify or set aside the punishment of dismissal.

Consequently directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service duly granting all other consequential

benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

The Petitioner was dismissed from the Company's service vide order dated 30.01.2010 on proved charges,

after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the

petitioner was initially appointed in the Company on 02.05.1987 as Floating Badli filler, and later he was regularized

as Coal filler on 01.01.2005. While working at SRP.1 Incline the petitioner was issued with a Charge Sheet

No.SRP.1/R/8/2009/1171, dated 04.05.2009 for his unauthorized absence from duty without sanctioned leave or

sufficient cause on various dates during the period from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008, under Company's Standing Order

Nos. 25.25 which reads as under.

"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause.”

The Petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the charge sheet on 04.05.2009, and submitted his explanation

dated. 07.05.2010 which was found to be not satisfactory hence an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Notice No.SRP.

1/R/8/09/1340, dated.19.05.2009 was issued to him advising to attend the enquiry on 23.05.2009. It is submitted that

the enquiry was conducted on 23.05.2009, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner attended and

fully participated in the enquiry, and he was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case, including availing the

services of a defense assistant in the enquiry which he however refused. At the outset the Enquiry Officer read over

the contents of the charge sheet and explained the enquiry procedure in Telugu. The petitioner expressed no objection

for recording the enquiry proceedings in English, as the enquiry proceedings were in fact held in Telugu, and it was

once again explained in Telugu by the Enquiry Officer at every stage of the enquiry. The Presenting Officer and the

management witness deposed their evidence in the presence of the delinquent which was duly recorded by the

Enquiry Officer. Further, the documentary evidence was produced by the management to substantiate the charges

leveled against the petitioner in the enquiry. The charge sheeted workman did not cross examine the management

witness when the opportunity was afforded to him, and voluntarily pleaded guilty of charges leveled against him. The

Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry and after appreciating all the evidence, submitted

his report in which the charge sheeted workman was held to be guilty of the charges leveled against him under

Company's Standing Order No.25.25. As such, a copy of the Enquiry report and proceedings were served to the

Petitioner vide letter No.SRP.1/R/S/09/1641, dated.09.06.2009 advising him to submit his representation if any,

within seven days of receipt of the letter, the Petitioner received the letter but did not submit any representation. It is

to submit that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings, representation submitted

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2015

by the petitioner, and after evaluating all the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer,

and as the charges framed and proved in the enquiry were grave and serious in nature warranting punishment with

that of dismissal, and after considering his past record and found no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view,

the delinquent workman was dismissed from Company's Services with effect from 30.01.2010 Vide letter

No.SRP/PER/I3.008/292, dated.25.01.2010. Subsequently, It is submitted that the Petitioner was a chronic and

habitual absentee, and did not put in at least 190 attendances as expected from an underground workman in any of the

year since 2004, and put in only 86 attendances in the year 2008 and remained absent from duty without sanctioned

leave, sick or sufficient cause. The following attendance particulars clearly indicate that the workman was never

regular to his duties.

Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Attendance

150

132

115

100

Further, The Petitioner did not communicate the reasons of his absence to the mine authorities at any point of

time, which clearly establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. The Petitioner failed to correct himself

even though sufficient opportunity was afforded to him, and ample time was at his disposal from the date of serving

the charge sheet to the date of his dismissal but to no avail. Therefore, the management was compelled to dismiss the

petitioner, from the service of the Company with effect from 30.01.2010 on proved charge. The Petitioner was earlier

issued with a Charge Sheet No. SRP. I/R/8/2008/210 dated 18.1.2008 for his unauthorized absence from duty in the

year 2007, without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause under Company's Standing Order Nos.25.25. Subsequently the

petitioner was imposed with a penalty of reduction of 2 SPRAs with effect from 1.2.2009 vide letter No.

SRP/PER/13 -008/2751, dated 24.06.2008 on proved charges. The petitioner did not realize his mistake and continued

to remain a chronic and habitual absentee. As such the allegations of the petitioner that Annual SPRAs was sanctioned

to him, as he was regular and sincere to his duties is not correct. Further, the quarters are allotted to the eligible

employees of the Company, based on their seniority and guidelines prescribed for allotment of quarters by the area

quarter allotment committee. The petitioner was not eligible for allotment of quarter as per his seniority and

guidelines. Petitioner was a chronic and habitual absente and has put in only 86 attendance in the year 2008 and

remained absent from duty unauthorized for 201 days without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause, for which the

petitioner was issued with a charge sheet No.SRP. 1/R/8/2009/1171, dated 04.05.2009 under Company's Standing

Order No.25.25. The Petitioner at no point of time has applied for sanction of leave or sick, and did not give

intimation to the mine authorities about the reasons for his absence from duty. The petitioner submitted his

explanation dated 07.05.2010 which was found to be not satisfactory hence an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was

held on 23.05.2009 in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given full and fair

opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner himself admitted his mistake and pleaded guilty. It is submitted that a

copy of the Enquiry report and proceedings were served to the Petitioner on 10.06.2009 vide letter

No.SRP.1/R/8/09/1641, dated.09.06.2009, but he did not submit any representation. The Disciplinary Authority after

going through the entire enquiry proceedings and after evaluating all the evidence on record and after considering his

past record was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from the services of the Company. Hence, it is prayed to

dismiss the petition as devoid of merits.

4. As there was no one to challenge the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry conducted in the present

case, the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents is held as legal and valid vide order dated 8.4.2019.

5. Both the parties have advanced their arguments under Sec.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in

support of their claim.

6. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties as well as the arguments submitted, following points

emerge for determination in this matter:-

Whether the termination /removal of the Petitioner from service vide impugned order No.

SRP/PER/13.008/292 dated 25.1.2010 by the Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?

II. Whether the Petitioner is liable to be reinstated into service duly granting of consequential benefits such as

continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits?

III. To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

7. Point No.I & II: As per claim petition filed by the claimant, he was appointed as Floating Badli Filler vide

office order No.PBPA/261.V/4242 dated 7.4.1987, w.e.f. 30.4.1987. Further he submitted that during the year 2004,

he suffered Typhoid and was hospitalized . He was attending duty from his village Itikala Laxettipet Mandal,

Adilabad Dist., 25 kms from work place. Then he requested Management for allotment of quarters as per his

seniority. But, the Respondent did not allot quarters despite his eligibility. Further, he submitted that charge sheet

No.SRP./R/8/2009/1171, was issued alleging that the Petitioner absented from duty during the year 2008, under

Standing order 25.25. Although the Petitioner submitted explanation dated 07.05.2009, submitting that he was

suffering from ill-health and as such he was unable to attend duty regularly, and not absenting intentionally. But

2016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Enquiry was conducted against him and completed in maximum one hour. The Petitioner has received the

termination/dismissal order dated 25.1.2010 . He has taken the plea that no document quoted /referred in the enquiry

proceedings was neither shown nor supplied to him and his thumb impression was obtained on different papers.

Further, he has taken the plea that charge sheet was not dated, not signed and incomplete when issued. The whole

enquiry is an empty formality, commenced and completed within an hour’s time, and mechanical procedure evolved

and adopted to dismiss the Petitioner. His ground of illness was not considered during the enquiry proceeding.

Further the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in Telugu and Enquiry Officer in his report clearly conformed

that it is admitted, undisputed fact that Petitioner was absent from January, 2008 to December, 2008 Petitioner

submitted explanation that he was absent due to ill-health but Enquiry Officer jumps into conclusion and avers that

charge sheeted employee habitually absented and the report of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and hasty conclusion,

It is further submitted that the evidence/witnesses produced by the Management is not relevant to the charges levelled

against him. As MW stated that the Petitioner absented during 2007 and two SPRAs were deducted, but the

Management did not produce any evidence or documents to establish the statement. Further, it is submitted that

charge sheet and further disciplinary proceeding is a phrase and empty formality. It is also submitted that Petitioner

is sole bread winner in his family consisting of his wife and three children, pursuing studies and as a result of his

dismissal the whole family is rendered without livelihood and become burden to one another. It is also submitted that

the petitioner is not gainfully employed elsewhere from the date of dismissal till date.

8. It is worth while to mention here that the validity of domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide

order dated 8.4.2019.

9. The first argument advanced by the Petitioner is that charge sheet supplied to him in the enquiry was not

dated, signed and incomplete when issued. The perusal of the record of enquiry proceedings goes to show that the

charge sheet issued to the Petitioner in enquiry has been dated 4.5.2009 and it is duly signed by Dy. G.M., SRP.I

Incline, at the foot of the charge sheet and the thumb impression of Petitioner on dated 4.5.2009 is also affixed on it.

It reflects that charge sheet was dated and signed by the authority was received by the Petitioner on the same day.

Moreover, Petitioner has submitted his explanation in response to the charge sheet. Therefore, it can not be said that

any kind of prejudice has been caused to him in this regard. Further, the record of enquiry proceeding also reveals

that when the question was put to the delinquent Petitioner whether he understood the contents of the charge sheet

delinquent replied: “Yes, I have understood the content of charge sheet.” There after Enquiry Officer read over the

charge sheet to the delinquent workman and explained in detail about the contents of the charge sheet in Telugu

language. At the foot of the enquiry proceeding along with signatures of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer,

the thumb impressions are also affixed by charge sheeted employee which goes to show that he participated in the

enquiry and was fully informed about the full contents of the charge sheet in Telugu language. Therefore, the plea

taken by the Petitioner that the enquiry proceedings were not done in Telugu is not sustainable and tenable. Further

it is undisputed and admitted fact that the Petitioner was absent from duty on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet

dated 4.5.2009 i.e., from 1^st January, 2008 to 31^st December, 2008 and he has submitted explanation that only due to

ill-health he had to absent from his duties and not otherwise. Petitioner alleges that the Enquiry Officer did not

consider medical certificates endorsed by Mines Manager and concluded enquiry.

10. Perused the record of enquiry proceeding. The Petitioner employee was cross examined by the Presenting

Officer on this aspect. In the answers to the question put to him by the Presenting Officer, Petitioner replied that he

have not intimated about his ill-health to the Superintendent of Mines, SRP.I Incline. Further, he was asked to

produce evidence in support of his statement or the charge framed against him in the charge sheet, then he replied,

“No sir, I am not having any evidence to produce in the enquiry.” Further, he was asked by the Enquiry Officer, he

want to add something, but the delinquent replied that, he do not want to say anything more than this. He was also

asked to produce any witness or document or any other evidence in support of his statement, he replied as below:

“No. I do not want to examine any witness or any document or any other evidence in support of my statement and

the charge served on me.” Therefore, during the enquiry proceeding fair opportunity of hearing was provided to the

Petitioner to fortify his statement of ill health, but he did not produce any documentary or oral testimony evidence.

Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that he had submitted the medical certificate during the enquiry, regarding his

absenteeism from duty and it was not considered by Enquiry Officer, have no force and same is not acceptable.

Further, during the enquiry proceeding, statement of Sri S.H. Rahman, clerk, SRP I Incline, MW recorded who has

stated that the delinquent workman remain habitually absent from duty on a number of days from January, 2008 to

December, 2008 without sufficient cause. He has also stated that the delinquent has put in only 86 actual musters

during the calendar year 2008 whereas as per Law the requisite musters must be put in by workman is for 190 days.

Further he has stated that delinquent has also absented for 213 days in the year 2007 unauthorizedly, for which two

SPRAs are reduced as punishment imposed for his absenteeism during the year 2007 under company’s Standing

Order No.25.25. The statement of witness was recorded in the presence of the Petitioner and he has accepted and

admitted that it has been correctly recorded. Further during the enquiry in order to prove the charge of absenteeism

against the Petitioner workman, Sri P. Sambaiah, Office Superintendent, SRP I Incline, was also examined and he has

also stated the same fact and proved that the delinquent Sri Akula Ramanna, is a habitual absentee and he was served

with charge sheet date d 4.5.2009 as he remained habitually absent on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet from

January, 2008 to December, 2008 without sufficient cause which constituted misconduct in view of company’s

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2017

standing order No.25.25. Further, he has stated that Petitioner acknowledged the charge sheet and submitted

explanation and the explanation submitted by delinquent found not satisfactory. The delinquent workman was asked

whether he want to cross examine Management witness, but he refused to cross examine the witness. Thus the

statement of witness MW1 MW2 in support of charge goes uncontroverted. Thereafter, the enquiry proceeding was

concluded and the Enquiry Officer submitted reasoned report. Thus, from the perusal of the record it manifests that

the enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing was extended

to the Petitioner.

11. Moreover, the Petitioner himself admitted the fact that he was absent from duty for the period from January,

2008 to December, 2008 and he also admitted the fact that he did not intimate about his absenteeism from duty for

the period from January, 2008 to December, 2008 to the authority. The reason for his absenteeism from duty

furnished by the Petitioner in his petition is that he was suffering from illness. But neither he produced any medical

certificate nor documentary evidence regarding his illness during the charge sheeted period nor has submitted any

plausible explanation that why he did not intimate about his absence from duty due to illness, to the competent

authority. Therefore, in the absence of the medical documents and intimation proof, it is proved that the Petitioner

remained absent from duty from January, 2008 to December, 2008 without sanctioned leave, unauthorizedly and

committed misconduct in violation of the standing order No.25.25. As far as contention about non-allotment of the

quarters to him by the Respondent is concerned, Respondent has submitted that the quarters are allotted to the regular

employees of the company based on their seniority and guidelines prescribed for allotment of quarters by the area

quarter allotment committee. But the Petitioner has not produced any evidence in this regard that he was eligible for

allotment of the quarter, as per criteria set by the quarter allotment committee of the Respondent. Thus, contention

of the Petitioner in this regard is unacceptable and it cannot be an excuse to remain absent form duty by the Petitioner

unauthorizedly.

12. Another the plea taken by the Petitioner that as a result of MOS dated 9.8.2011 which was signed by the

company and agreed to consider re-appointment of dismissed employees, the Petitioner also submitted the application

along with others, after scrutiny he was called for interview also at Head Office Kothagudem, on 26.4.2010, but in

vain. In this regard, the Respondent has submitted that MOS was reached by the company with the then recognized

trade union on 9.8.2011 under Section 12(3) of I.D. Act, 1947 before the Regional Labour commissioner (Central),

Hyderabad. As per the terms and conditions of the settlement a circular No.CRP/PER/IR/S/555/1267 dated 9.8.2011

was issued by the company calling applications from the ex-workmen, who were dismissed from the services of the

company, during the period from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2010 under absenteeism. The High Power Committee constituted

for this purpose reviewed all such cases. However, the committee did not recommend the case of the Petitioner as he

was not covered under the eligibility criteria prescribed for considering the case. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner

was not considered for re-employment as per the settlement. It is relevant to be mentioned here that re-employment

of dismissed workmen is a discretionary power of the employer and the Petitioner has not pointed out any case

similar to his case of dismissed employee who has been provided re-employment by Respondent in preference to the

Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner was not challenged the non-selection in re-employment in this petition nor relief

claimed. Therefore, his argument in this regard not sustainable.

13. Petitioner also submitted that he is the sole bread-winner in the family consisting of wife and three

children, as a result of dismissal the whole family is rendered without livelihood and become burden to one another.

Since the Petitioner has not been gainfully employed elsewhere from the date of dismissal till date. In this regard the

Respondent counsel submitted that the Petitioner was orally advised time and again by the mine authorities to attend

his duty regularly but to no avail. The Petitioner attended counseling held for improving performance, but the

Petitioner did not kept his promise and his lack of interest in job. Thus, plea taken by the Petitioner that he is sole

bread winner of his family and as a result of dismissal his whole family is rendered without livelihood is not

sustainable keeping in view his conduct of long absenteeism from duty. The Petitioner is responsible towards his

family members as well as company and he must have attended duty regularly. Any employees owes to employer

devotion to duty and integrity but, Petitioner fails in both respect. Thus, plea taken by Petitioner have no merit,

liable to be rejected. Petitioner himself is responsible for creating the crisis of livelihood even after affording many

opportunities to him for improvement but he did not pay heed to it, hence faced consequences for his conduct in terms

of punishment of dismissal. As being absenting from duty unauthorizedly time and again due to his absence the

Respondent suffers a lot. No reasonable employer would tolerate such employee in his employment as in the case of

Petitioner. Hence, dismissal of Petitioner from employment was just and legal.

14. Now we come to the point whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon Petitioner for his misconduct

is disproportionate or not commensurate to the misconduct. In this regard, Respondent counsel submitted that

Petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in atleast 190 musters attendance as acceptable for an

underground workman in any of the years since 2004 and put in only 86 musters in the year 2008, and remained

absent from duty without sanctioned leave without sufficient cause. Respondent has furnished the details of the

attendance of the workman during last six years which goes to show that in the year 2004, the attendance was only

150 days, in the year 2005- it was 132 days, in the year 2006-115 days, in the year 2007- 100 days, and in 2008-86

days only, in the year 2009 it was only 44 days, which is much less of requisite musters of 190 days in one calendar

2018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

year. Thus, Petitioner lacks devotion to his duty and continued to remain absent from duty unauthorizedly. Further,

he did not keep up his assurance of being regular to his duties, after affording opportunity and remained

unauthorizedly absent without sanctioned leave or permission. Petitioner did not countered or contradicted the above

fact. Therefore, Respondent has no option except to dismiss the Petitioner from services. In support o his argument,

Respondent has cited the following decisions:

(i). Hon’ble Apex Court in State of UP and others vs Ashok Kumar Singh and another 1996(1) SCC, Page

302 held:-

"Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several

occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observations that "His absence from duty would not amount

to such a grave charge." Even otherwise, on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to

interfere with the punishment holding that "the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge"

especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the

punishment is made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal."

(ii). Further, in North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Ashappa’s Case, dated 12.5.2006 the

Apex Court, while dealing with the case of absenteeism, have held:-

"...remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, can not be said to be a minor misconduct. The appellant runs

a fleet of busses. For running the busses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of

busses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The respondent had been given opportunities to

resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a

period of more than 3 years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorized absent on

several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the respondent herein

has to be treated lightly."

(iii). In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:

"Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence,

more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence

and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows

the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only

exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders the

absence unauthorized."

15. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since Petitioner

was chronic and habitual absentee and lacking devotion to duty and due to his misconduct of absenteeism in

violation of Standing Order No.25.25 agreement, due to it work of the Respondent company suffered a lot. Therefore,

Respondent company was left with no option except to remove Petitioner from employment by imposing the

punishment of dismissal. Therefore, in these circumstances, it can not be said that punishment imposed on the

Petitioner is disproportionate or not commensurate to the misconduct committed by him.

16. In view of the discussion in the foregone paragraphs and law laid down by the Apex Court, the action of the

respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order No. SRP/PER/13008/292 dated

25.1.2010 is found just and legal

Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.

17. Point No.III: In view of the discussion and findings arrived at Points No.I & II, the petitioner is not entitled

to any relief. The claim petition of the petitioner is unfounded hence liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the finding given in the determination of Points No. I and II as above, the action of the

respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order No. SRP/PER/13008/292 dated

25.1.2010 is held just and legal. The claim petition of the petitioner is dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

31^st day of March, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2019

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2023

का.आ. 957.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

50/2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2023 - आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2023

S.O. 957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L- 22013/01/2023-IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer

Dated the 28^th day of April, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 50/2010

Between:

Syed Mahaboob,

S/o Syed Khamruddin,

Clo A.Sarojana, Flat No. G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner

AND

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

2. The Director (PA & W),

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

3. The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

RG-1 Area, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

……. Respondents

Appearances:

2020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

Sri Syed Mahaboob who worked as General Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity

of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The Brief averments of the claim petition filed by the Petitioner are as under:

It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Badli Filler in the 1^st respondent company on

3.9.1993 and after putting up satisfactory service, he was confirmed as Coal Filler. Subsequently, the petitioner was

converted as General Mazdoor. During his tenure of 16 years, petitioner has not been issued with any charge sheet

and his services were appreciated by one and all. While so, a change sheet dated 21.2.2008 was issued alleging that,

on 18.2.2008 petitioner caught red handed while taking away 20 Kg copper wire (cable conductor) in a bag at 6L/ID.

On receipt of charge sheet. petitioner has submitted his explanation on 27.2.2008, pleading that he has not committed

any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. However, without considering the merits of his explanation, an enquiry

was initiated whereat petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. On behalf of management,

the Management Representative examined himself and the petitioner's statement was recorded. Neither any witnesses

were examined on behalf of the management, nor the petitioner was permitted to examine witnesses n his behalf. Even

the procedure of enquiry was also not explained to the petitioner. Further, the documents relied upon by the Presenting

Officer were not furnished to the Petitioner either before or during the course of enquiry. From the beginning the

enquiry officer proceeded with a preconceived notion, as if the petitioner is guilty of charges. Though petitioner was

not aware of the English or Telugu languages proceedings of enquiry were drafted in English and signatures of the

petitioner were obtained. Had the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry properly, out come of enquiry would have

been different. As a result of improper enquiry, petitioner was put to great prejudice. Basing on such lop sided

enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding the charge as proved. Consequently, show cause notice dated

21.2.2009 was issued, to which the petitioner has submitted his reply on 17.3.2009. Even the disciplinary authority

has not considered the submissions made by the petitioner and wholly relying upon the version of the Management

Representative, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 25.3.2009. Aggrieved by the

above, petitioner filed WP No.7868 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of AP. However, the Hon'ble High Court

of AP by an order dated 18.4.2009 adjudicated the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the

appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, as the appeal

was not considered by the appellate authority. Petitioner had to approach the Hon'ble High Court of AP by filing WP

No.14244 of 2009. Having considered, the Hon'ble High Court of AP was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition by

an order dated l6.1.2009, directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. Consequently, the appellate

authority has passed the order dt.26.2.2010, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. As such, petitioner left with no

other alternative, except to approach this Hon'ble Court for justice. None of the submissions of petitioner were

considered by the 3^rd respondent before passing the impugned order of dismissal. It is submitted that, while holding

the petitioner as guilty, the enquiry officer relied upon the alleged statement of E.Rajaiah. But neither E. Rajaiah was

examined before the enquiry officer nor the alleged statement was marked in the enquiry, duly furnishing a copy of

the same, to the petitioner. But, by relying upon the alleged statement of E.Rajaiah, petitioner was held guilty.

Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal issued by the 3^rd respondent, relying upon the laconic report of the

enquiry officer, is unsustainable in law. It is submitted that, on receipt of the charge sheet, petitioner has not only

denied the charge, but also pleaded that at 6L/1ID a bag was found lying and near the said bag, Sri B.Venkateshwarlu

(Management Representative) was found standing. As the petitioner has seen him near the bag, Sri

B.Venkateshwarlu lodged a complaint against the petitioner, as if, petitioner committed theft. The management

representative contended that, he has seen the petitioner while carrying one bag on his shoulders in the presence of

E.Rajaiah. But E.Rajaiah was not examined in the enquiry. However, as admitted by Management Representative, he

has obtained a statement from E.Rajaiah on the instructions of Colliery Manager. Therefore, the contention of

Management representative is not corroborating with each other. As per the version of Management Representative,

petitioner was carrying a bag on his shoulders. When questioned petitioner left the bag at 6L/1D and came back to him

and answered his question. Thereafter, when he has enquired about the contents of the bag, petitioner replied, saying

that, bag contains fitter tools but on opening the same, it was stated to have found to be copper wire, weighing around

20 Kgs. Thereafter he stated to have arranged the bag to be brought from underground and kept in his room on the

surface, with the assistance of E.Rajaiah. This version of Management Representative cannot be treated as theft.

Even as per the findings of the enquiry officer. "As per the written complaint by Sri E. Rajaiah and to the reply

submitted by charge sheeted employee, it is proved beyond doubt that CSW attempted theft and caught red handed by

Management Representative", whereas the charge alleged against the petitioner was committing theft. It is to submit

that, there is a it is apparent that only with a view to avoid the possible blame, the management representative

implicated the petitioner in the false case, but not otherwise. There is a vast difference between 'attempt to commit

theft' and 'committing theft’. The Petitioner having been appointed on 3.9.1993, he has been rendering his sincere

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2021

services in the company from more than 16 years. There were no adverse remarks against him during his l6 years of

service. It is submitted that, petitioner was made a scapegoat for no fault of him. It is submitted that, dismissal from

service is a major punishment, which cannot be imposed without holding proper enquiry. The impugned order was

issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, as such the impugned order is liable to be set-a-

side. His appeal before the Appellate Authority was dismissed, holding that "your contention that enquiry officer has

not complied with the guidelines while conducting the enquiry is not correct". The petitioner crave indulgence of this

Tribunal to modify the penalty to that of any other lesser penalty, so as to survive himself and to look after his family.

Hence, Petitioner prayed to declare the impugned office order No.RG-1/Per/S/46/1708 dt.24/25.3.2009 issued by the

3" respondent and consequential proceeding No.CRP/PER/IR/D/91/465 dt.26.2.2010 issued by the 2^nd respondent, as

illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same, consequently directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into

service duly granting all other consequential benefits, such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attended

benefits.

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the Petitioner in brief as under:

It is submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service on proved charges of theft of taken away about

20 Kgs. of copper wire in a bag while on duty after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the

principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the Respondent's Company as Badli

Filler on 3.9.1993 and appointed as Coal Filler w.e.f. 1.9.1995. Later he was appointed as General Mazdoor w.e.f.

1.9.2005. It is submitted that on 18.2.2008 in General Shift the petitioner deployed to work as LHD Operator at

4D/1L. During the inspection of shift Under Manager along with Sri E.Rajaiah, Mining Sirdar at about 2.35 PM, it

was found that the petitioner was found carrying a gunny bag containing about 20 Kgs., of copper wire (Cable

Conductor) at 6 L/ID. On enquiry it was revealed that the copper wire was peeled off from the cable and brought from

4D/3L work spot. As his action amounts to misconduct, a charge sheet No.RG.I/GDKTIA/R/006/515, dated

21.2.2008 was issued to him under Company Standing Order No.25.1 & 25.24 which reads as follows:

“25.1

Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property.

25.24

Sabotage or causing willful damage to work in progress or to property of the Company.”

It is submitted that the petitioner has acknowledged the charge sheet and submitted an explanation

dt.27.2.2008 denying the charges which was found to be not satisfactory. An enquiry was ordered vide notice No.

RG. I/|1ARO006/549, dated 24.2.2008 fixing the enquiry on 28.2.2008. The enquiry was commenced on 28.2.2008

and concluded on 11.01.2009. The petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full and air

opportunity to defend his case. Management representative presented the facts of the case along with written

complaint dated 20.2.2008 given by Sri E.Rajaiah, Mining Sirdar. It is submitted that the contents of the charge sheet

and enquiry procedure were explained in Telugu to both parties. The petitioner was given an opportunity to have

assistance in the enquiry to defend his case, but he did not avail the same. The Petitioner was allowed to cross

examine the Management representative. The Management Representative produced written complaint dated

20.2.2008 of Sri Erukala Rajaiah, Mining Sirdar in support of his statement. The petitioner denied all the allegations

levelled against him during the cross examination. But in his explanation dated 27.02.2008 the petitioner mentioned

that he knows about the bag which contains copper wire. The petitioner did not produce any evidence or witness in

support of his statement. As there is contradiction in his statement and the reply submitted by him, it is clearly evident

that the petitioner is having thorough knowledge about the bag which contains copper wire. As per the written

complaint given by Sri Erukala Rajaiah and the reply submitted by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner was

the only person who entered carrying bag with copper wire through the door at 6 L/ID in underground where he was

caught by Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Under Manger, Gdk 11A Incline who is the responsible shift in charge. Thus, the

Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner was conducted were proved beyond doubt in

compliance of principles of natural justice. The 3^rd Respondent issued 2^nd show cause notice No.RG./Per/S/46/1144,

dated 25.2.2009 along with copies of enquiry report and enquiry proceeding to enable him to make representation.

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.3.2009 which was and found to be not satisfactory. It is submitted

that after thorough examination of the case in totality, the Respondents were constrained to dismiss the petitioner from

service of the Company w.e.f. 25.03.2009 vide order No.Rg.I/PER/S/46/1708, dated 24/25.3.2009 duly following the

procedure under Company's Standing Orders. It is submitted that aggrieved with the Order of penalty of dismissal

from service the Petitioner filed W.P.No.7868 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of AP which disposed at the

stage of admission on 18.04.2009, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal as per the Standing Orders of the

Company within a period of two weeks and the Respondents dispose of the appeal within a period of 8 weeks

thereafter. It is submitted that subsequently the petitioner tiled another WP No.l4244 of 2009 seeking directions to

set aside the dismissal order which was disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal

dated 24.4.2009 pending on his file against the order of termination and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In

compliance with the Order, the petitioner's appeal dated 24.04.2009 was examined in detail by the Appellate

Authority. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has not complied with the

guidelines while conducting the enquiry is not correct. It is submitted that after going through the records it is found

2022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that, he has given contradictory statements that in his reply to the charge sheet dated 27.02.2008 mentioning that at

6L/1Dip he has seen one bag containing copper wire, which he has informed to the shift in-charge Shri

B.Venkateswarlu, whereas in the cross examination during the enquiry he has pleaded ignorance of any knowledge

about the said bag. The above aspect clearly indicates that the petitioner tried to circumvent the evidence to mislead

the enquiry and escape from the charge of theft of copper wire. It is submitted that basing on the circumstantial

evidence brought out in the enquiry report, it has been established in the enquiry that the petitioner has committed the

Act of theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with Company's property coupled with act which endanger safety of

men and material, and is serious in nature. It is submitted that it is clear from the enquiry proceedings that the

petitioner had fully participated in the enquiry and he was also issued with 2^nd show cause notice along with enquiry

proceedings and report which he has acknowledged. He had submitted explanation dated 17.03.2009 which was

considered by taking all factual aspects into account and found to be not satisfactory. It is submitted that as it was

established that the petitioner has committed theft/fraud of about 20 Kilos of Copper wire by peeling out the cable

conductor provided in the Gdk 11A Incline mine installation endangering safety of workmen and equipment and since

there were no extenuating circumstances to take lenient view to reinstate him in Company Services by revoking the

penalty of dismissal imposed on him, the penalty imposed on him by the disciplinary authority was confirmed vide

letter No.CRP/PER/IR/D/9/465, dated 26.02.2010 by the Appellate Authority. It is submitted that the Enquiry

Officer has gone through the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report in detail. The contention of the petitioner that

the Enquiry Officer has not complied with the guidelines while conducting the enquiry is not correct. As per the

Enquiry proceedings and Report, the Enquiry Officer has discussed the evidences let in by the Petitioner, the

Management Representative and the circumstantial evidence and based on the material on records has come to

conclusion that the charges are proved. It is submitted that after going through the records it is found from the When

a person is found guilt of misappropriating the Company funds or theft there is nothing wrong in the Company losing

confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for

generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the Judicial Forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of

punishment. If such persons are allowed to be let-off with light punishment, then that will send a wrong signal to the

other persons similarly situated. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition as devoid of merit.

The validity of domestic enquiry held neither legal nor justified vide order dated 28.3.2012, directing the

Respondent to adduce evidence.

Both parties filed written arguments under Sec.11A of the Act.

Petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High

Court:-

1. A. Damodar Vs. M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., & ors. WP No.26615/1997 by Hon’ble High Court of

A.P., 2.G. Valli Kumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and Ors. 2010 2 SCC page 497, 3. The General Manager Vs.

Sri Mohd. Fareed and another in WP No.816/2004, 4. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co., vs. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR

1972 SC page 1031, 5.

The divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), AP Transco Limited, Guntur Vs. The

Labour Court, Guntur and another, WP No. 24231/2001, 6. S.L. Narasiah Vs. Addl.Indtrl.Tribnl cum Addl. Labour

Court, Hyderabad in WP No.17972/2010, 7. K. David Wilson Vs. Secretary to Government, Law Department

(Legislative Affairs and Justice), Hyderabad and another 2001(5) ALT 65 (D.B.), 8.Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of

Gujarat and another 2013 (4) SCC page 301, 9.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010

(2) SCC page 772.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties and arguments advanced by the parties following points

emerge for determination in the present matter:

Whether the action of management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd in terminating the petitioner Sri

Syed Mahaboob, from the employment vide order dated 26.2.2010 is justified?

II. Whether Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in the employment of Respondent Management?

III. If not, to what relief petitioner is entitled?

Findings:

8. Points No.I & II:

The Petitioner has taken the plea that he was initially appointed as badli filler in the

Respondent No.1 establishment on 3.9.1993 and after putting up satisfactory service he was confirmed as Coal Filler.

Subsequently, the petitioner was converted as General Mazdoor. While so, a change sheet dated 21.2.2008 was

issued alleging that, on 18.2.2008 petitioner caught red handed while taking away 20 Kg copper wire (cable

conductor) in a bag at 6L/ID. On receipt of charge sheet. petitioner has submitted his explanation on 27.2.2008,

pleading that he has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. However, without considering the

merits of his explanation, an enquiry was initiated and petitioner was not given any opportunity much less valid in

nature. On behalf of management, the Management Representative examined himself and the petitioner's statement

was recorded. Neither any witnesses were examined on behalf of the management, nor the petitioner was permitted

to examine witnesses on his behalf. Even the procedure of enquiry was also not explained to the petitioner. It is

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2023

further submitted that the documents relied upon by the Presenting Officer were not furnished to the Petitioner either

before or during the course of enquiry. From the beginning the enquiry officer proceeded with a preconceived notion,

as if the petitioner is guilty of charges. Though the petitioner was not aware of the English or Telugu languages

proceedings of enquiry were drafted in English and signatures of the petitioner were obtained. It is submitted that if

the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry properly, outcome of enquiry would have been different. As a result of

improper enquiry, petitioner was put to great prejudice.

On the other hand, Respondent has refuted the allegations made by Petitioner regarding proper and fair

enquiry and he has contended that enquiry was conducted against the Petitioner violating the principles of natural

justice.

10.

In the present matter the legality and validity of domestic enquiry has been held neither legal nor valid by

the Tribunal vide order dated 28.3.2012 and that has not been challenged by the Petitioner in any higher forum. Thus,

the Tribunal’s order dated 28.3.2012 has become final as of now.

11.

After holding the domestic enquiry not legal and nor valid, the Tribunal posted the case for evidence of

Management on 20.6.2012, in order to afford an opportunity to the Management to adduce the evidence to justify its

decision of termination of the Petitioner from the service. However, despite being provided with sufficient number of

opportunities to adduce the evidence, the Management did not produce any single evidence and did not avail of it.

The record of the case goes to reveal that the case was posted for Management evidence on 20.6.2012 and there after,

the opportunity of evidence was closed on 14.6.2017. During the period of five years, Management never tried to

examine any witness o justify its decision of termination. Further, the arguments of the parties were concluded on

11.4.2023. Even prior to the conclusion of the argument, Respondent Management did not care to produce the

evidence in support of his decision. Therefore, the Management was provided sufficient number of opportunities to

adduce the evidence in support of his decision. Since, vide order dated 28.3.2012, the Tribunal held the legality and

validity of the domestic enquiry as neither legal nor valid, and the decision of termination of the Petitioner from the

services was totally based upon the finding of the domestic enquiry, in such circumstances when the domestic enquiry

itself has been held not legal and valid , the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in terminating the services of the

Petitioner from employment vide order dated 26.2.2010 is itself vitiated and not sustainable in the eye of law.

12.

In this regard, the case law of Cooper Engineering Limited. Vs. P.P. Mundhe 1975 AIR 1900 is

relevant, wherein the constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “The question posed at the

commencement of our judgment is thus highlighted by the aforesaid observations of the Labour Court and we are

required to consider whether after the Labour Court comes to a decision about the inquiry being defective it has any

duty to announce its decision in that behalf to enable the employer an opportunity to adduce evidence before it to

justify the order on the charge levelled against a workman.

There is, however.. no doubt that when the employer chooses to do so the workman will have his opportunity to rebut

such evidence. There is also no doubt, whatsoever, that if the employer declines to avail of such an opportunity, it

will be open to the Labour Court to make an appropriate award and the employer will thereafter be able to make no

grievance on that score.

We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for

industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has

violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the

employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be

decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the Management to decide whether it

will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter

permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue.. we should also make it clear that there will be no justification for

any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to

the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate

for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is

no undue delay in industrial adjudication.”

13.

In the case of State Bank of India vs. RK Jain and others 1972 AIR 136, the Hon’ble Apex Court has

held:-

“We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for

industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic inquiry has

violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic inquiry or defective inquiry is admitted by the

employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be

decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced, it will be for the management to decide whether it

will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter

permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue.. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for

any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its decision with regard to

the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will also be legitimate

2024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is

no undue delay in industrial adjudication.”

14.

Similarly, in the present matter, the Management was extended sufficient opportunity to justify its’ decision

for adducing the evidence, but employer declined to avail of such opportunity. Therefore, in the present matter,

Tribunal finds that there is no evidence against the Petitioner to find him guilty of the charges levelled against him in

the domestic enquiry. In such circumstances, it will be open to the Court to quash the termination order of the

Petitioner from service passed by the Respondent Management and employer will thereafter be able to make no

grievance on that score.

15.

Apart from the above, the Petitioner in Para 5 of the petition has taken the plea that, “Even otherwise also on

behalf of the Management, no witness was examined, except recording the deposition of Management representative.

The role of Management representative is only to introduce relevant witnesses and relevant documents on behalf of

Management, but he cannot be treated as Management representative. Further, in the instant case, solely relying

upon the evidence of Management representative the charge was held proved by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary

Authority simply endorsed laconic approach of the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority is unjustifiable.

It is further contended that while holding the Petitioner as guilty, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the alleged

statement of Sri E. Rajaiah. But neither Sri E. Rajaiah was examined before the Enquiry Officer nor the alleged

statement was marked in the enquiry duly furnishing a copy of the same to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the statement

of Sri E. Rajaiah was obtained behind the back of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was estopped from

relying upon such statement but while relying upon the alleged statement of E. Rajaiah Petitioner was held guilty.

Therefore, impugned order is unsustainable in law. ”

16.

In view of the submission made by the Petitioner, the perusal of the record of the enquiry proceeding goes to

reveal that in the charge sheet dated 21.2.2008 issued against the Petitioner, it is mentioned that, “It is brought to the

notice of the undersigned that during the inspection of section in charge along with Sri E. Rajaiah, Mining Sirdar at

about 2.35pm, you were caught red-handedly while taking away about 20 Kgs of copper wire (Cable Conductor) in a

bag at 6L/1D.” Whereas, Sri E. Rajaiah, was eye witness of the incident of alleged theft committed by delinquent but

reason known best to Enquiry Officer, Sri E. Rajaiah has not been examined during the enquiry to prove the charge

against the Petitioner. There is no corroboration of statement of witness, Management representative Sri B.

Venkateshwarlu. The record of the enquiry proceeding also goes to reveal that the only Management representative

Sri B. Venkateswarlu has been examined during the enquiry proceeding and on the basis of uncorroborated

testimony of that witness, the Petitioner has been found guilty of the charge during the enquiry proceeding.

Therefore, in view of the above, Respondent Management has not substantiated the charge against the Petitioner, by

adducing the cogent and reliable evidence. I find force in the submission of the Petitioner on this count also.

Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.

17.

Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Point No.I & II, and in view of the fore gone discussion and

law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the action of the Management M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating the Petitioner Sri Syed Mahaboob from the employment is totally

unjustified and illegal and petition of the Petitioner deserves to be allowed. Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into

employment with 50% of the back wages.

Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the finding given in the determination of Points No. I, II and III above, it is held that the action of

the respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri Syed Mahaboob vide order

No.CRP/PER/IR/D/91/465 dated 26.2.2010 is not legal, and hence is set aside. Respondent is directed to reinstate

the Petitioner into service, with 50% of back wages from the date of termination i.e., 26.2.2010 within two months

from the date of receipt of this order.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 28^th

day of April, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2025

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 2 िून, 2023

का.आ. 958.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

24/2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2023- आई आर (सी. एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2023

S.O. 958.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No.L- 22013/01/2023-IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer

Dated the 28^th day of March, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 24/2010

Between:

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,

S/o Lakshmaiah,

R/o H.No.16-9-749/1,

Race Course Road, Old Malakpet,

Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem Area, Khammam District.

2. The Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

VK No.7 incline, Kothagudem,

Khammam District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. G. Ravi Mohan, Vikas Sharma & K. Bhaskar, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri S.M. Subhani, Advocate

AWARD

Sri K. Srinivas Rao who worked as General Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries

2026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Company Ltd., seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity

of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The Brief averments of the claim petition filed by the Petitioner are as under:

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a General Mazdoor on 27.9.1998. Initially he was posted

at Kothagudem- VK- VII Incline. It is submitted that the petitioner has been performing his duties to the utmost

satisfaction of his superiors. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was issued with charge sheet alleging with

the following charges:

The above act of yours is misconduct under Company's standing order 25 (25) & 25 (31) which reads as

follows:

25(25): Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

25 (31): Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave.

It is submitted that the petitioner gave a detailed explanation to the said charge sheet denying the charges that

he was fell sick due to Jaundice. Therefore he was not in a position to perform his duties regularly. Inspite of the said

explanation the respondent appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the charges. During the course of

enquiry, the petitioner's statement was taken as an advantage as if the petitioner admitted the charges and the Enquiry

Officer made the petitioner guilty of the charges and he was dismissed from service by the proceedings dated

04.10.2007. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent in dismissing the Petitioner’s service is illegal, arbitrary

and unjust. Petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court under section 2 A (2) of Industrial Disputes act,

1947 for necessary relief. The Petitioner has not filed any other application, suit or writ before any court of law for

the relief sought herein. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner was sick and he was not in a position to perform

his duties properly as he was suffering from Jaundice and in fact the 2nd respondent the 2^nd respondent took the

statement of the petitioner as if the petitioner admitted the charge. The respondents are well aware that the petitioner

was suffering from Jaundice. The Respondents failed to see that, absenteeism is a minor misconduct and the dismissal

is not warranted. The petitioner has served the respondent organization for a period of 9 years without any remarks.

Therefore the respondent ought to have appreciated the said fact. It is submitted that the petitioner is the only earning

members in the family. It is submitted that due to the illegal termination, the petitioner is facing severe financial

difficulties and it has become very difficult to eke out his livelihood. Hence it is prayed to direct the Respondent to

reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the Petitioner in brief as under:

It is submitted that as far as the Respondent's Company concerned, it operates the mines and the appropriate

government is Central Government. The proper procedure to entertain any Industrial Dispute is after the failure of the

conciliation, which has not been done, in the instant case. Straight away the Petitioner has approached the Industrial

Tribunal by filing a Petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is a not applicable to the

Respondent's Company. It is submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service on proved charges of

absenteeism after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. It is

submitted that petitioner by his conduct had accepted the misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism and as can be seen

from the records he was dismissed vide Order dated 16.11.2007 and he has chosen to file the present case on

23.02.2010 i.e. after a lapse of nearly 2 years, 3 months. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of

delay and latches. It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler in the Respondent Company on

27.09.1989 and later drafted as General Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.09.1995. The petitioner was issued Charge Sheet

No.KGMVK7/RI00/528, dated 27.01.2007 for his absence from duty on various dates during the period from

01.01.2006 to 31.12.2006 without any sanctioned leave or sufficient cause under Company's Standing Order Nos.

25.25 and 25.31 which reads as under:

"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause."

25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.”

The petitioner acknowledged receipt of the charge sheet on 31.01.2007 and he has submitted his explanation

dated 13.04.2007 to the said charge sheet. The explanation submitted by the Petitioner was found to be not satisfactory

and as such it was ordered for domestic enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Accordingly an enquiry notice

bearing No. VK/EN/RI00/1138, dated 28.02.2007 was issued advising the Petitioner to appear for the Enquiry on

14.04.2007 at 10.30 AM at the office of Superintendent of Mines, VK.7 Incline, Kothagudem. The petitioner has

participated in the enquiry proceedings against the charge sheet and the Petitioner was given full and fair opportunity

to conduct his defence. In his statement during the course of enquiry, the petitioner accepted that he remained absent

from duty on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet. He added that he remained absent due to his ill-health and his

wife's ill-health. He has also accepted that the absence mentioned in the charge sheet correct. As per the findings of

the Enquiry Officer, the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner was supplied copies of

enquiry report and proceedings vide second show cause notice No. KGM/PER/18/1535, dated 29.05.2007 advising the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2027

petitioner to submit his representation, if any, within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Petitioner

received the said notice on 08.06.2007 and submitted his representation dated 12.06.2007 requesting to give him

another opportunity to improve himself assuring that he will put 20 actual musters every month and the petitioner did

not raise any objections against the findings of the Enquiry officer. The said application was also considered by the

Respondent Company and in order to give him an opportunity to improve himself his performance was kept under

observation for three months after being counselled on 12.06.2007. Even then the Petitioner failed to improve his

performance and the following month-wise musters during observation period.

1. July, 2007

…. 18 musters

2. August, 2007

…. 17 musters

3. September, 2007

…. 11 Musters

The Petitioner did not keep up his promise and assurance and continued to remain absent for his duties unauthorizedly

without leave or permission. The Petitioner was an underground employee and should have attended duties more

regularly and should have put in a minimum musters of 190 per year. The petitioner had put in the following

attendances from the year 2004 to 2007.

Year

Actual Musters

2004

2005

2006

074 days

114 days

039 days

It is clear that the Petitioner is negligent in attending the duties. The Disciplinary Authority has considered

the Enquiry Proceedings, Report and also all the material on record and decided to impose the punishment of

dismissal from the services of the Company. Accordingly dismissal order dated 16.11.2007 was passed dismissing the

petitioner from services. It is submitted that the Respondent Company was not aware that the Petitioner was suffering

with Jaundice. If at all the Petitioner's health is not good there is no need for him to absent for his duties, as he could

have admitted himself for treatment in any of Colliery Dispensaries, Area Hospitals and at Main Hospital,

Kothagudem. As an employee of the Respondent Company it becomes his minimum responsibility to report the fact to

the authorities concerned about his sickness and obtain sanctioned leave. A General Mazdoor that too underground

employee was expected to put in 190 musters in a calendar year but the petitioner had put in contrary to that rule. The

misconduct committed by the petitioner and proved against him is grave and serious in nature. It is submitted that the

terminal benefits of the Petitioner have been processed and settled in his favour at his request. It is submitted that the

Respondents' Company employs about 67,129 persons, which includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The

production results will depend upon the overall attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are

inter-linked and inseparable. In this regard, if any one remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified

cause, the work to be performed gets affected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at time is very

difficult to fill-up, and there will be no proper planning and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without

prior notice. That is the reason why the Respondents' Company is compelled to take severe action against the

unauthorized absentees. In the instant case, the Petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee and he did not put in 190

musters in any of the calendar years. Hence, the claim petition be dismissed in limini.

The validity of domestic enquiry held legal and valid vide order dated 29.8.2018.

Respondent filed written arguments under Sec.11A of the Act.

Perused the record.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties and arguments following point emerging for

determination in the matter:

Whether the action of management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd in termination of the services of

petitioner K Srinivas Rao, vide order dated 16^th November, 2007 is justified? If not, to what relief petitioner

is entitled?

Findings:

8. Point No.I:

At the outset it would be worth noting that the validity of domestic inquiry has been held legal and

valid, vide order dated 29th August, 2018. However, the document pertaining to the inquiry proceedings filed by

respondent goes to reveal that the petitioner was given full opportunity at every stage of the proceeding which he

availed and he never raised any objection complaining causing any prejudice of any nature to him before the inquiry

officer. Further it reveals that he received all the papers/documents and chargesheet and he filed a reply to the charge

sheet before the inquiry. He was afforded the cross examination opportunity of the respondent witness and to produce

the evidence in defense. Thus, he attended the proceedings at every stage of inquiry. The Enquiry Officer appreciated

2028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the evidence and submitted his reasoned reports, holding the petitioner guilty of charge. Therefore, no case is made

out to hold that the domestic inquiry suffers from any procedure lapse or was conducted in violation of the principle of

natural justice.

Admittedly, Petitioner was appointed as General Mazdoor on 27^th September, 1998 and was posted at

Kothagudem -VK-7 incline. Due to his long absenteeism from the duty, unauthorizedly, without leave sanctioned,

the Respondent served the charge sheet and conducted enquiry against him. On conclusion of enquiry the petitioner

found guilty of charges and he was dismissed from service by proceeding dated 4^th October, 2007 on the misconduct

of absenteeism.

10.

The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 4^th October, 2007 by which his services were

terminated, firstly on the ground that he was sick and was not in a position to perform his duties properly as he was

suffering from jaundice. The second respondent himself has stated the petitioner to take rest for his disease. But the

second respondent took the statement of the petitioner as if the petitioner admitted the charge but in fact the

respondents were well aware that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice. In this regard respondent has contended

in his counter that respondent company was not aware that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice if at all, the

petitioner health is not good there's no need for him to absent from his duties, as he could've admitted himself for

treatment in any of the respondent management Collieries dispensary, area hospitals and at near hospital Kothagudem.

It is further submitted that as an employee of respondent company it becomes his minimum responsibility to report the

fact to the authorities concerned about his sickness and obtain leave sanctioned or get loss of pay leave sanctioned.

But the petitioner without following any of the above recourse simply claims that his submission was not considered,

therefore the averment of petitioner regarding his illness is a simple statement without supporting any document

evidence. The petitioner has never informed that he was absent due to continuous sickness and petitioner is put to

strict proof of allegation. It's also submitted that habitual absenteeism for years together by the petitioner is evident

from his attendance particulars from 2004 to 2007. He, being an underground employee and more particularly being a

General Mazdoor was expected to put in 190 Musters in a calendar year but the petitioner contrary to this had put in

only 074, 114, 039 and 073 musters during 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and he claims himself a regular employee and

hence the allegation of petitioner in this regard are denied. However, the petitioner couldn't submit any valid

documents to substantiate his claims, so the disciplinary authority passed a detailed order with reasons.

11.

Admittedly Petitioner has not submitted any medical document pertaining to his illness as he alleges of the

Respondent Management hospital where he could have taken treatment of his illness. Further, he did not furnish any

explanation as to why he did not took treatment in Management hospital. Moreover, he did not submit any reliable

documentary evidence of treatment of his illness and also did not disclose the period of illness or undergoing any

treatment in this regard.

12.

The perusal of the documents of inquiry proceedings goes to reveal that during the inquiry the petitioner has

admitted before the Enquiry Officer in response to Question No. 8 which reads 'Yes I admit the charges and plead

guilt as I have remained absent from duty. Further, the statement of petitioner was recorded in the inquiry proceedings

wherein he has stated that due to his ill health and wife's ill health he couldn't attend duty regularly during the year

2006, at present his health is improved. He was asked to add anything to his statement but he refused to add

anything. Therefore, it reveals that the petitioner didn't produce any documentary evidence or Medical Certificate

obtained from competent medical authority to substantiate his allegation of absence due to illness. On this count, the

plea taken by the petitioner that due to illness he was absent from duty without sanctioned leave is not tenable.

Furthermore, he did not furnish any plausible explanation regarding not intimating the management about the reason

of his absence from duty in time. He didn't file any document which could reflect that at any point of time he ever

attempted to intimate the reason for his absence from duty to the respondent management. Therefore, in the absence of

such documentary evidence the plea taken by the petitioner that he was absent due to illness is not proved and it

seems to be an afterthought, and not acceptable.

13.

The second plea taken by the petitioner, that the respondent failed to see that absenteeism is a minor

misconduct and the dismissal is not warranted. In this regard the respondent has stated in his counter that the

allegation of Petitioner that the respondent failed to see that absenteeism is a minor misconduct and dismissal is not

warranted is denied and petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It's also submitted that respondent company

employs about 67,129 persons which includes workmen, executives and supervisor. The production results will

depend upon the overall attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are interlinked and

inseparable. If anyone remains absent without prior leave or without justified cause the work to be performed gets

affected. Such unauthorized absence creates a sudden void which at times is very difficult to fill up and there will be

no proper planning and the already plan schedule gets suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That's the reason why

the respondent company is compelled to take severe action against unauthorized absenteeism. In the instance case the

petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee putting 074 musters during 2004, 114 musters during 2005, 039 musters

during 2006 and 073 musters during 2007. During the said period of years petitioner didn't put in requisite 190

musters in any of the calendar years. Further it's submitted that the respondent company was constrained to dismiss

the petitioner for unauthorized absenteeism w.e.f. 16^th November, 2007 due to his habitual conduct of absenteeism.

It's also submitted that the company's standing order numbers 25.25 and 25.31 which reads as under:

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2029

"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without any sufficient cause."

"25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave."

(i).

To fortify his submission the respondent counsel has cited decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of UP

and others vs Ashok Kumar Singh and another 1996(1) SCC, Page 302 wherein Apex Court held:-

"Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions,

we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observations that "His absence from duty would not amount to such a

grave charge." Even otherwise, on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with

the punishment holding that "the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge" especially when

the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is

made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal."

(ii).

Further, in North Esstern Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Ashappa’s Case, dated 12.5.2006 the

Apex Court while dealing with the case of absenteeism, held that:-

"...remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, can not be said to be a minor misconduct. The appellant runs a

fleet of busses. For running the busses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of

busses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The respondent had been given opportunities to

resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a

period of more than 3 years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorized absent on

several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the respondent herein

has to be treated lightly."

(iii). In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:

"Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence, more

particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence and/or

lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows the

seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only

exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders the

absence unauthorized."

Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the habitual absentee like Petitioner in this case,

can not be said as minor misconduct and dismissal is justified punishment.

14. In the present matter the petitioner hasn't contradicted the facts mentioned by the respondent in his counter

regarding the attendance of the petitioner on duty from the year 2004 to 2007. Admittedly, actual musters of the

petitioner in the year 2004 were 074 days, 2005 were 114 days, 2006 were 039 days and in the year 2007 were 073

days which was much less of requisite musters of 190 days and it also reflects that the petitioner is habitual

negligent in attending his duties. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that absenteeism from duty is a minor

misconduct and dismissal is not warranted, is not tenable in this case. He was habitual of absenteeism from duty for

consecutive 4 years, just preceding from the date of his termination. Although he was given warning and opportunity

to improve his muster before his termination order but he failed to improve his conduct as shown from record that he

could secure 18 musters in July, 2007, 17 musters in august, 2007 and 11 musters in September, 2007. Thus, he was

not able to reform also and punishment of dismissal was imposed upon which is justified.

15. As far as the interference in the order of termination of the petitioner from the service is concerned, Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Coal India Ltd vs Mukul Kumar Chaudhary, Civil Appeal No. 5762-5763, date of

decision 24th August, 2001, has laid down the test for deciding proportionality of the punishment imposed and

held that:

"One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be:- Would any

reasonable employer have imposed such a punishment in such circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is

expected to take into consideration measures, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant

circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before punishment."

16. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Coal India Ltd vs Mukul Kumar

Chaudhary and in the case of State of UP vs Ashok Kumar Singh, held, “it cannot be said that punishment of

termination imposed upon the petitioner by the Respondent for his misconduct of habitual absenteeism is

disproportionate or not commensurated to the misconduct committed by petitioner.” Therefore, there is no ground

for interference in the order of termination of the services of the petitioner.

17. An other plea taken by the petitioner is that respondent failed to see that petitioner has served the respondent

organization for a period of 9 years without any remarks. Therefore the respondent ought to have appreciated the said

2030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fact and that he is the only earning member in the family and due to his termination petitioner is facing severe

financial difficulties and it has become very difficult to take out his livelihood. In this regard, respondent has

submitted that respondent is not aware that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner in his family. If it's a fact, the

petitioner should've discharged his responsibilities towards his family with more attention by being regular to duties.

It's further submitted that the terminal benefits of the petitioner have been processed and settled in his favor at his

request. Therefore, in view of the submission made by respondent the plea taken by the petitioner in this regard is not

tenable.

18. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022 LLR page

126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “once the enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper, industrial

Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is

shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of conduct.”

Similarly, in the present matter enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper and due to conduct of Petitioner being

habitual absentee, the work of Respondent company suffered a lot and the Respondent was left with no option except

to impose the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service. Therefore, in these circumstances, the

punishment of dismissal of the Petitioner/workman is commensurate to the misconduct of the Petitioner.

19. In view of the discussion in the foregone paragraphs and law laid down by the Apex Court, the action of the

respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order No.KGM/PER/7/3415 dated

16.11.2007 is found just and legal and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claim petition of the petitioner

is unfounded hence liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In view of the finding given in the determination of Point No. I as above, the action of the respondent

management in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order No.KGM/PER/7/3415 dated 16.11.2007 is held

just and legal. The claim petition of the petitioner is dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 28^th

day of March, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Offcier

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 8 िून, 2023

का.आ. 959.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj dsujk cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] u a1 चंडीगढ़- ds iapkV (77/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल- 12011/03/2023- आई आर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2031

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2023

S.O. 959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 77/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-I as

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

[No. L- 12011/03/2023-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

ID No. 77/2022

Registered on:-17.03.2023

Shri Avnish Khosla, Secretary (Central Body),

Canara Bank, Staff Union and Chairman,

Bank Employees Federation of India, Punjab-140118.

.…..Workmen-Union

Versus

The General manager, Canara Bank,

Plot No.01, Sector-34/A,

Chandigarh-160022.

…..Management

AWARD

Passed on:-23.05.2023

Central Government vide Notification No.L-12011/03/2023-IR(B-I) Dated 08.02.2023, under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of management of Canara Bank, Chandigarh in transferring the

workman Shri Davinder Singh Jamwal from one Branch (Bishna Branch, District-Jammu) to

another branch (Miran Sahib Branch, District Jammu) is proper, legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date and what directions, if any, are

necessary in this respect?

1. On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workmen-union as well as to the

respondent/management. The postal article sent to the workmen-union, referred above, is duly delivered to the

workmen-union. The workmen-union has appeared through Sh. Avnish Khosla, Vice President of the workmen-

Union, who has filed an application, alleging therein that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and he

do not want to pursue the matter and wants to close the case.

2. Since a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, there is no need to proceed with the matter further.

3. It is now well settled position in law that any settlement arrived at between the parties is legally binding upon

both the parties in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. In view of the application filed by Sh. Avnish Khosla, Vice President of the workmen-Union, the present

claim petition is dismissed as settled. The application moved by Sh. Avnish Khosla, Vice President of the workmen-

Union shall remain the integral part of the Award.

5. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under

Section 17(2) of the Act.

J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

2032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 960.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj cSad vkWQ cMksnk ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (03/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल- 39025/01/2023- आई आर (बी -II)-17]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

workmen.

[No. L- 39025/01/2023-IR(B-II)-17]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 03/2017

BETWEEN

Ram Manorath Verma S/o Shri Swami Nath Verma

Through Sri Parez Alam, Labour Law Advisor

283/63, Kha, Garhi Kanora (Premwati Nagar)

PO-Manak Nagar, Lucknow – 226011

Regional Manger

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office

19, Way Road, Lucknow.

Manager

Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited

42, Gautam Budh Marg, Lucknow – 226019

AWARD

The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman, Ram Manorath Verma before this Tribunal for

adjudication as per provisions section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

Case/Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

Sri Parvez Alam who is authorized representative of the workman submits that the workman, Ram Manorath

Verma, was initially appointed as peon in the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited at its Gautam Budh

Branch, Lucknow in the year 1991 where he performed his duties honestly as per the directions given by his superior

authorities and worked in the said capacity till 07.11.199, thereafter, without any reasonable and justified reasons he

was not allowed to work w.e.f. 08.11.1992 on one hand and on the other hand the persons junior to him or similarly

situated, Sri Soni, Sri Amar Deep Singh Yadav and Sri P.K. Srivastava who are working in the Bareilly Corporation

Bank after merger with the Bank of Baroda were retained in service, thereafter their services have been regularized on

fourth-class post.

Being aggrieved by the said action of the Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited thereby not allowing the

workman to work and discharge his duties on the post of peon the he approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing a

W.P. No. 8314 (SS) of 1992 Ram Manorath Verma v. Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited & others, disposed of by the

means of order dated 03.12.2004, operative portion reads as under:

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed more than 240

days but the services of the petitioner have been terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions

of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He has further submitted that one junior to the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2033

petitioner namely Amar Deep Singh Yaday, is still working. This fact has also not been disputed in the

counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties.

It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is

fully covered with the cases of Shatrughan Nishad & Vs. District Magistrate /Administrator

/Chairman, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills, Sultanpur & others reported in 2000 (2) HVD 203 and

Madhur Misra Vs. Industrial Tribunal, U.P. & another reported in 2000 (2) HVD 259 because before

terminating the services of the petitioner, the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act

have not been complied with.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the

directions that the opposite parties shall examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the

observations mentioned in the above case laws and if his case is covered with the aforesaid decisions,

they shall take suitable steps for keeping back him in service, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a

copy of this order.”

Accordingly, on behalf of the workman, it is also submitted that in the pursuance to the order dated

03.12.2004 passed in W.P. No. 8314 (SS) of 1992 workman had made a representation dated 04.01.2005, considered

and rejected by an order dated 28.03.2005 by the Asstt. General Manager (LR), Bank of Baroda.

As the case of workman was wrongly decided by an order dated 28.03.2005, so he made another

representation dated 05.07.2011 to the Competent Authority, which was not disposed of so the claimant/workman

filed WP No. 3018 (SS) of 2005 Ram Manorath Verma v Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited, disposed of by order

dated 03.09.2011 with following direction:

“At this stage the petitioner confines his prayer to issue direction to the opposite party No.1 to

decide his representation dated 5th of July, 2011. Therefore, without entering into the merit of the

case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the concerned of opposite party to

take a decision on the petitioners' representation within three months after receipt of a certified

copy of this order.

In pursuance to the same the case of the claimant/workman has been considered and decided by the Dy.

General Manager, Bank of Baroda by an order dated 09.01.2012, which reads as under:

“Kindly refer to the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow

Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 3018(55) of 2005 being instituted by you and your

Representations dated 05.07.2011 (being annexed with the Application) & 20.10.2011 (provided with

the Copy of Order of the Hon'ble Court) in pursuant thereof.

The Hon'ble High Court while finally disposing of your Writ Petition No. 3018(SS) of 2005 vide

Judgement & Order dated 03.09.2011 had directed:

"At this stage the Petitioner confines his prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party No. 1 to

decide his representation dated 5 of July 2011 Therefore, without entering into the merit of the case,

the writ petitions disposed of finally with the direction to the concerned Opposite Party to take a

decision on the Petitioner's representation within three months after receipt of a certified copy of this

order."

You are fully aware that the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. has been amalgamated with the

Bank of Baroda under an Amalgamation Scheme (your acceptance at paragraph – 3 of your

Rejoinder Affidavit is referred to) sanctioned by Government of India, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) in the YEAR 1999 with certain terms and

conditions and consequent upon amalgamation of the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. (the

Transferer Bank) in the Bank of Baroda (Transferee Bank), the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank

Ltd. Seize to exist and all Rights and Oligation of the employees of Transferer Bank as on the date of

amalgamation vests in Transferee Bank 1.e. BOB, thus, the Transferee Bank is under obligation to

take care of all disputes of Transferer Bank.

Despite your assertions in your Rejoinder Affidavit at paragraphs 5, 15 and 20 that "petitioner was

the employee of erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited hence case of the petitioner only be

examined by Bareilly Corporation Bank and not the Bank of Baroda", the Rights and Obligations

have been vested in Transferee Bank i.e. Bank of Baroda consequent upon amalgamation of erstwhile

Han Corporation Bank Ltd and also view of the aforesaid facts and directions of the Hon'ble High

2034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court the undersigned being Respondent No 6 has perused and considered all the relevant

circumstances and your aforesaid Representation and has to state as follows:

"On perusal of records, Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank

Ltd. In the year 1990 in Writ Petition 6314(55) 1992 and list of staff members provided at the time of

amalgamation of the erstwhile Barely Corporation Bank Ltd with Bank of Baroda in the year 1999, I

find that you had never been employed in the Lucknow Branch of the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation

Bank Limited at any time. Further, you have not been able to provide any convincing evidence like

letter of appointment, pay slip or the like document to substantiate that there ever existed any

relationship of Employer- Employee in between you and the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank

Limited.

As far as your claim that one junior to you namely Sri Amar Deep Singh Yadava was retained and

allowed to continue is concerned, I have perused the matter relating to said Sri Amar Deep Singh

Yadava and found that said Sri Amar Deep Singh Yadava was appointed in the erstwhile Bareilly

Corporation Bank Ltd. as Peon against a vacant post after due selection Vide Appointment Letter No.

CO/66/PD dated 13 July1994 and he continued in the regular employment of the erstwhile Bareilly

Corporation Bank till the date of amalgamation, therefore, the case of Sri Amar Deep Singh Yadava

is quite different from your case and can not be compared with in as much as while Sri Amar Deep

Singh Yadava was a Sub-Staff in the Rolls of erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd, till the date of

amalgamation, you had never been an employee of the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd.,

therefore, is a stranger.

In the circumstances, while on the one hand, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not

attracted at all in your case, on the other hand, ratio of case laws cited by you in your representations

dated 05.07.2011 & 20.10.2011 are also not attracted.

Consequently, your claim being devoid of merit and your representations being based on without any

substance are rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.”

Order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda, challenged by the

claimant/petitioner by fling WP No. 1185 (SS) of 2012, dismissed by order dated 09.03.2016 reads as under:

“This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.1.2012 with further prayer to direct

the opposite. parties to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Peon with all the consequential benefits

including continuity, salary, back wages etc.

Admittedly, the petitioner was employed with the opposite parties for certain period in 1991-1992. He

was in the, employment since November, 1992 on a Class IV post

In case the petitioner has any grievance with respect to his discontinuation or termination of service,

he has at remedy of raising dispute before the Labour Court. In view of above, the writ petition is

dismissed with liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid.”

In view of the said factual background, on 13.12.2016 the present adjudication case has been field by the

clamant u/s 2A of the Act.

And in support of its case workman/claimant by means of application dated 05.02.2018 (W-10), filed the

following documents:

“(1)

याजचका सँo 1185 वषि 2012 (एस0एस0) प्रजतजलजृ सभी सॅलग्नकों सजित ृष्ठ सं0-1 से 29 तक

(2)

याजचका सँo 1185 वषि 2012 (एस0एस0) मे माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ल नऊ ृीठ का आिेि दि०

09/03/2016 की प्रजतजलजृ ृष्ठ सें0 30 से 31 तक

(3)

सँरािन वाताि के मध्य सेवायोिक मिोिय द्वारा प्रस्ट्तुत जलज त क न की प्रजतजलजृ ृष्ठ सं0 32 से 33 तक

(4)

याजचका सैं0 8314 वषि 1992 (एस०एस०) मे माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, ल नऊँ के आिेि दि० 03/12/2004

की प्रजतजलजृ ृष्ठ सं0 34 से 38 तक “

It is also submitted on behalf of the claimant that in addition to the pleadings as well as documentary

evidence led by parties on their behalf, oral evidence has also been led i.e. examination of Chief of workman was filed

on affidavit on 19.02.2018, he was cross-examined on 31.05.2010 and on behalf of respondent Examination of Chief

Sri Rajeev Pradhan retired from the post of Branch Manager, erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. at G.B. Road

Branch, Lucknow who was posted during the period 1991 has been filed; on 02.01.2019 he was cross-examined

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2035

Accordingly, Sri Parvez Alam the authorized representative of workman submits that from the cross-

examination of Sri Rajeev Pradhan it is established that workman has worked for 240 days in last preceding 12

months prior to retrenchment of his services, and has also not denied the letter written by Sri V.K. Garg, Labour

Enforcement Officer, Lucknow which is quoted as under:

“That the respondents have not received any notice from the Hon'ble High Court for his appearance on 19-

10-92.

That in the absence of the above notice from the Hon'ble High Court this office is unable to submit

comments.

That the Labour Enforcement officer (Central) Lucknow, have visited to Bareilly Corporation Bank on 15-7-

92 and observed some violations Committee by the M/ Bareilly Corporation Bank Lucknow under payment

of Bonus Act 1965. Some employees like Shri, Sushil Kumar have been deputed on daily rated basis and their

attendance have not been recorded in the attendance Registrar. Moreover they have not been allowed to put

their attendance on the record though they have worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year. How

appointment of Sri Ram Manorath, Sri Soni, Amarjeet Singh Yadava and Shri P. K. Srivastava have also

been made after termination the services of Sri Sushil Kumanr Misra looking to the ulterior motive action to

the management and in the absence of the record the inspection have no alternate except to relieve the

employees have worked more than 240 days to the Calandar year as he has sufficient evidence to prove that

he had worked in the Bank for more than 240 days. The Inspection report issued by the inspection under Act

1965 shall be submitted before the Hon'ble high Court as the next date to hearing the other evidence after

receipt Hon'ble High Court.

It is also requested that notice summon for appearance before the Hon'ble Court may be addressed

to the office by name.”

Accordingly, Sri Parvez Alam also submits that as per order dated 03.12.2004, passed by the Hon’ble High

Court in WP No. 8314 of 1992 (SS) Ram Manorath Verma vs. Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited & others, relevant

portion quoted as under:

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed more

than 240 days but the services of the petitioner have been terminated in violation of the

mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He has further

submitted that one junior to the petitioner namely Amar Deep Singh Yaday, is still working.

This fact has also not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties.”

And the case law as laid down in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Sankarlingam

2008(119) FLR 398 and Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs. Bhikubahi Meghajibhai Chavda 2999 (123) FLR

875, action on the part of the respondent/bank thereby no allowing the workman to work and discharge his duties

w.e.f. 08.11.1992 although he has completed more than 240 days in the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited

and retaining the persons junior to him is illegal and arbitrary action. So, the respondent/Bank of Baroda may be

directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages.

Case/argument on behalf of the respondent:

Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents in rebuttal, submits that the applicant was

engaged as a courier person through courier agency for the purpose of taking bag and postal article etc. from one

branch to another branch. In this regard he has placed reliance on the averment as made in paragraph 20 of the written

statement and the said fact were not denied by the claimant/workman.

He further submits that the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited by means of notification dated

01.06.1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, department of Economic Affairs merged into the

Bank of Baroda.

Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla also submits that initially in pursuance to the direction issued by the Hon’ble High

Court dated 04.01.2005 in WP No. 8314 (SS) of 1992 the case of the workman has been examined, found incorrect, so

by order dated 28.03.2005, rejected by Asstt. General Manger (LR) of Bank of Baroda.

And in pursuance to the direction given by Hon’ble High Court dated 03.05.2011, passed in WP No. 3018

(SS) of 2005, petitioner’s representations of the claimant/workman dated 05.07.2011 & 20.10.2011 were considered,

taking into consideration the material on record, rejected by an order dated 09.01.2012, passed by Dy. General

Manager, challenged by the claimant/petitioner by filing WP No. 1185 (SS) of 2012 dismissed by order dated

09.03.2016.

2036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Accordingly, Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla argued that so far as the argument as raised on behalf of the respected

that the workman that he was orally engaged for certain period in 1991 and 1992 is not supported by cogent evidence

either documentary or oral filed on his behalf before this Tribunal that he has been continuously worked for 240 days

prior to termination of his services.

As a matter of fact, and record after amalgamation of Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited with Bank of

Baroda the person/employees who are on roll in the Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited their services were

taken/merged in the Bank of Baroda in the capacity they were working in the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank

Limited, thereafter, as per the Rules and Regulations which governs in regard to the employees working in the Bank,

their services were, regularized; however, the case of the claimant/workman does not falls under the said category, so

he cannot claim parity with the said persons.

Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla also argued that the reliance which has been from the side of the workman on the

documents namely letter of V.K. Garg, Labour Enforcement Officer is a photocopy so the same cannot be read as

evidence, unless and until the same is proved by producing the original or by producing the person who has issued the

same.

And from the evidence of Sri Rajeev Pradhan on affidavit (dated 02.01.2010), it is clearly established that the

workman has not worked for 240 days in the Bank prior to retrenchment of is services or his case is similar to the

employees retained in the Bank and he is not entitled for any relief.

Lastly it has been submitted on behalf of respondent that neither by the way of pleadings; documentary or by

way of oral evidence the claimant has proved that he has worked continuously for 240 days in last 12 months prior to

his retrenchment in erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited, which has merged with the Bank of Baroda as

alleged by him on the post which belongs to class IV category; as such, he is not entitled for any relief, present case is

liable to be dismissed with cost. In support of his case, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore v. S. Mani 2005 CJ (SC) 788.

Findings and Conclusion:

I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

On the basis of material on record as well as pleadings by the parties and evidence led by them

documentary/oral and after hearing argument of learned counsel the position which emerged out is that

workman/claimant was orally engaged on Class IV post in the Bank on 01.10.1991, which is evident from the cross

examination of the workman/claimant on 19.11.2020, quoted herein below:

“मुझे बैंक द्वारा कोई जनयुजि ृत्र निीं दिया गया ा मैंने दकसी जनयुजि प्रदक्रया में भाग निीं जलया ा मेरा नाम

employment exchange में नाम ििि ा मैंने ना तो High Court के समक्ष अ वा इस न्यायालय के समक्ष िावे में

employment exchange में नाम ििि िोने का क न निीं दकया िज

मैंने employment exchange में नाम ििि िोने का कोई िस्ट्तावेि िाज ल निीं दकया िज मुझे श्री सुनील श्रीवास्ट्तव,

Accountant ने काम करने के जलए किा ा मैं सुनील श्रीवास्ट्तव को 01.10.1991 से ृूवि निीं िानता ा

01.10.1991 से ृूवि में बैंक के दकसी अजिकारी या कमिचारी को निीं िानता ा

मैं 01.10.1991 से एक दिन ृिले सुनील श्रीवास्ट्तव से उनके घर ृर जमलने गया ा उन्िोंने अगले दिन से काम ृर

आने के जलए किा ा मैं 01.10.1991 से ृूवि Branch में कभी निीं गया ा

मैंने delay के बाबत िावे में कोई अजभक न निीं दकया िज मैंने जिस writ के आिेि के ृटरणाम स्ट्वरुृ यि िावा ृेि

दकया िज वि writ मैंने 2012 में िाज ल की

01.10.1991 से 07.11.1992 तक उस Branch में permanent चृरासी ा

मैंने अृने िावे में िूजनयर का नाम उल्लेज त दकया िज गवाि ने िावा िे कर बताया दक निीं नाम जल ा िज”

Thus, the workman/claimant was not engaged/appointed in the Bank as per the Rules; rather engaged by one

Shri Sunil Srivastava on 01.10.1991.

The core question is to be considered whether as per the case of the workman he was engaged in the bank

from 01.10.1991 to 07.11.1992 and had completed more than 240 days in the last preceding twelve months prior to

retrenchment of his services, if so, then the same is in violation to the provisions contained in section 25 F of the Act

or not?

On behalf of the workman a letter written by Sri V.K. Garg, Labour Enforcement Officer has been filed in

which it is clearly mentioned that on his inspection in the Bareilly Cooperation Bank Limited it was found that the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2037

workman has worked in the erstwhile Bareilly Cooperation Bank Limited (now merged with the Bank of Baroda) for

more than 240 days.

No doubt the photocopy of the said letter has been filed by the workman in support of his case, but Sri

Rajeev Pradhan, retired Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda who was Branch Head of erstwhile Bareilly Cooperation

Bank Limited at G.B. Marg, Lucknow in respect to period in dispute in his cross-examination admitted the letter

written by Labour Enforcement Office and also admitted that the Bank has not field any objection against the said

letter, W-10/40, which itself goes to show and prove that the claimant has worked for more than 240 days prior to

retrenchment of service of the Bank i.e. 01.10.1991 to 07.11.1992.

Thus, from the material on record as well as evidence/oral and documentary it is clearly established that the

claimant has been orally engaged without following any procedure on 01.10.1991 and in the said capacity he has

worked up till 07.11.1992, thus, he has completed more than 240 days prior to his retrenchment/termination from

services, without following the provisions of section 25 F of the Act, thus, termination/retrenchment of services of the

claimant/workman was illegal and unjustified; however, the claimant is not entitled for relief of reinstatement as

claimed by him because he was engaged in the Bank orally without following any procedure prescribed in this regard

in Rules of the Banks.

But entitled for the retrenchment compensation, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the

case of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital & others v. Runna Prasad Saini & another 2021 AIR (SC) 4400, which

reads as under:

“9. Therefore, the appointment of the first Respondent was on contractual basis and not to a regular post

on proper selection in terms of the rules. Pertinently, the Respondent has not indicated his educational

qualifications and whether he has necessary qualifications to work as a nurse or a ward boy. It is also

obvious that the contractual term was over. In other words, the first Respondent had worked with the

Appellant during the period September, 2003 to June, 2005. He has not worked thereafter. There is

nothing on record to show and establish the Appellant had not followed the Rule 'last to come, first to go'.

This is neither alleged nor proved.

10. In Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (2019) 4 SCC 307, this Court had referred to

several earlier judgments and had quoted with approval the ratio as expounded in Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, to the following effect:

33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant

of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied

mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent

workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair

labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage

worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in

violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the

view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the

workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.

Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law

that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment

compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required Under Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the

services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a

workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to

seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi]. Thus when he cannot claim

regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose

is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary

compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he

would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and

notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap,

would not serve any purpose.

35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a

daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour

practice or in violation of the principle of last-come-first-go viz. while retrenching such a

worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons

junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In

such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are

some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of

2038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the Rule and only in exceptional cases

for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.

11. This dictum was again followed in State of Uttarakhand and Anr. v. Ray Kumar (2019) 14 SCC 353

and Ranbir Singh v. Executive Eng. P.W.D.

12. In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that the first Respondent was not a permanent employee

but a contractual employee. There is no evidence to establish that the Appellant had retained junior

workers; such unfair trade practice is not alleged or even argued before us. The first Respondent

having worked for more than 240 days, termination of his services violated the mandatory provisions of

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, we modify

the order of the Labour Court by setting aside the direction for reinstatement and would enhance the

compensation by awarding a lump sum amount.

13. The High Court had stayed reinstatement of the first Respondent but no order Under Section 17B of

the Industrial Disputes Act was passed. The first Respondent has, however, filed an application before

this Court Under Section 17B to direct the Appellant to pay the "last drawn wages".

14. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we are inclined to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.

10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs only) to the first Respondent.

15. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed setting aside the direction for reinstatement, which is

substituted with the direction of award of lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs

only). The said amount would be paid within a period of ten weeks from the date of this order. In case

payment is not made within the said period, the Appellant would be liable to pay simple interest @

0.5% per month from the date of this order till payment is made.”

And in the case of Ranbir Singh v. Executive Eng. P.W.D. 2021 LLR 920, which reads as under:

“2. The case of the Appellant was that he was working with the Respondent for a period of nearly eight

years and service was terminated without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). The Labour Court rejected the contention of the Respondent

that the Appellant had not worked for 240 days and found that Appellant had indeed worked for 240

days. It is found that there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act and the Labour Court awarded

reinstatement of the Appellant with 25 per cent back wages. As already noticed, it is this award which is

set aside by the High Court.

3. Shri Manjeet Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant would seek to rely upon the judgment of

this Court in Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2015) 6 SCC 321. He would further

submit that some of persons juniors to him were also dealt with in a different fashion, and in their case,

they are working and they have, in fact, been regularised also. Learned Counsel submits that the

Appellant should be reinstated in terms of the order of the Labour Court. Per Contra, Shri Samar Vijay

Singh, learned AAG for the Respondent pointed out that the acceptance of the contention of the

Appellant involved violation of the law laid down by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and

Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. He still further drew out attention to the decision of this

Court in State of Uttarakhand and Anr. v. Raj Kumar (2019) 14 SCC 353 and points out that, in such

circumstances, an order of reinstatement may not be justified.

4. It is true that in the Ajay Pal Singh (supra), the Bench of this Court, by judgment rendered in the year

2015, took the view that, when the termination is effected of service of a daily wager, there must be

compliance of Section 25F. This Court, in fact, went on also to note that unlike a private body, in the

case of a public body, while it may be open to resort to retrenchment of the workmen on the score that

there is non-compliance of Articles 14 and 16 in the appointment, in which case, in the order

terminating the services, this must be alluded to, it would still not absolve the public authority from

complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and, should it contravene Section 25F, it would

amount to an unfair trade practice. We do notice, this judgment has been reiterated in a subsequent

judgment also in Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Ors. v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

(2015) 5 SCC 786.

5. However, we notice that there is another line of decisions, and the latest of the same, which is

brought to our notice by Shri Samar Vijay Singh, learned AAG, is Raj Kumar (supra). We may refer

only to paragraphs-9 and 10:

9. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in

BSNL v. Bhurumal [BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 373] and

Distt. Development Officer v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia [Distt. Development Officer v. Satish

Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298: (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 276].

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2039

10. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in BSNL [BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7

SCC 177: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 373]: (SCC p. 189, paras 33-35)

33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle

of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be

illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where

services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide

and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to

the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found

illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases

reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be

given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for

shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is

trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of

retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required Under Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the

management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the

retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis

and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006

SCC (L&S) 753]]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to

continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in

reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court

itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive

monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice

pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap,

would not serve any purpose.

35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where

termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was

resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first

go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained.

There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some

policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated

worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty

reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In

such cases, reinstatement should be the Rule and only in exceptional cases for the

reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.

6. In the light of the state of the law, which we take note of, we notice certain facts which are not in

dispute. This is a case where it is found that, though the Appellant had worked for 240 days, Appellant's

service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The authority

involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the

Appellant was a daily wager and the Appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note

that, in the award answering Issue No. 1, which was, whether the termination of the Appellant's service

was justified and in order, and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled to, it was

found, inter alia, that the Appellant could not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of

junior workers. There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such circumstances, we think

that the principle, which is enunciated by this Court, in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar

(supra), which we have referred to, would be more appropriate to follow. In other words, we find that

reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable

compensation would be the appropriate remedy.

7. In such circumstance, noticing that, though the Appellant was reinstated after the award of the

Labour Court in 2006, the Appellant has not been working since 2009 following the impugned order,

and also taking note of the fact that the Appellant was, in all likelihood, employed otherwise, also the

interest of justice would be best subserved with modifying the impugned order and directing that in

place of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lumpsum compensation, Appellant be paid Rs.

3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into

consideration also the fact that the Appellant had already been paid Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand) as compensation.

2040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. We modify the impugned judgment by directing that over

and above, compensation directed of Rs. 3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand),

shall be paid to the Appellant.

9. This will be done within a period of eight weeks from today.

10. The appeal is partly allowed as above. The aforesaid payment shall effectuate a full and final

settlement of all claims of the Appellant.”

So for as the argument has been raised on behalf of the workman/claimant that he was disengaged from

services on 08.11.1992; whereas the persons who are junior to him viz. Sri Soni, Sri Amar Deep Singh Yadav and Sri

P.K. Srivastava are being retained in services and later on when the Bareilly Cooperation Bank Limited merged with

the Bank of Baroda they were allowed to work in the Bank of Baroda and subsequently their services were regularized

in this regard there is no averment in the Claim Petition filed by the claimant.

Once there is no pleading in this regard then in view of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by L.R. and Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 115, the relevant portion reads as

under:

“CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:

Order VI:

20. Order VI of the Code while defining the word "pleading" makes it applicable on even terms to both

a plaint and written statement. Every pleading Under Order VI Rule 2 shall contain a statement of

material facts on which a party relies either for his claim or defense. Such a pleading should contain

the necessary foundation for raising an appropriate issue. Under Order VIII Rule 2 a Defendant shall

make specific pleadings while Under Rule 3 a denial should be specific. Rule 4 prohibits an evasive

denial and Rule 5 speaks of consequences of not denying specifically an averment in a plaint leading to

presumption of an admission.

A relief can only be on the basis of the pleadings alone. Evidence is also to be based on such pleadings.

The only exception would be when the parties know each other's case very well and such a pleading is

implicit in an issue. Additionally, a court can take judicial note of a fact when it is so apparent on the

face of the record. A useful reference can be made to the following passage in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima

Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491:

15. The relevant principle relating to circumstances in which the deficiency in, or absence of,

pleadings could be ignored, was stated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagwati

Prasad v. Chandramaul [: AIR 1966 SC 735]: (AIR p. 738, para 10)

10. ... If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by

implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the

mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily

disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The

general Rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the

parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the

suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely, in the issues, and evidence has

been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly

taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in

every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did

the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they

lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was

in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in

respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely

upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had

no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in

doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another.

(emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

23 [Ed.: Para 23 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./89/2009 dated 17-7-

2009]. It is fundamental that in a civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference to

the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by

various factors like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also grounds barring relief,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2041

like res judicata, estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of action or parties, etc., which

require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit

whatever be the relief that is prayed, the court can on examination of facts grant any relief as

it thinks fit. In a suit for recovery of rupees one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree for

rupees ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of property 'A', court cannot grant

possession of property 'B'. In a suit praying for permanent injunction, court cannot grant a

relief of declaration or possession. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily

depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.”

In the case of Biraji and Ors. v. Surya Pratap and Ors (2020) 10 SCC 729, the relevant portion reads as

under:

“7. Having heard the learned Counsels on both sides, we have perused the impugned orders and other

material placed on record. The suit in Original Suit No. 107/2010 is filed for cancellation of registered

adoption deed and for consequential injunction orders. In the adoption deed itself, the ceremony which

had taken place on 14.11.2001 was mentioned, hence it was within the knowledge of the Appellants-

Plaintiffs even on the date of filing of the suit. In the absence of any pleading in the suit filed by the

Appellants, at belated stage, after evidence is closed, the Appellants have filed the application to

summon the record relating to leave/service of Ramesh Chander Singh on 14.11.2001 from the Rajput

Regiment Centre Fatehgarh. It is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence

will not help the party. When the adoption ceremony, which had taken place on 14.11.2001, is

mentioned in the registered adoption deed, which was questioned in the suit, there is absolutely no

reason for not raising specific plea in the suit and to file application at belated stage to summon the

record to prove that the second Respondent-Ramesh Chander Singh was on duty as on 14.11.2001.

There was an order from the High Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and the application which

was filed belatedly is rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court and

High Court. It is also pertinent to mention, subsequent to dismissal of the application in Application

No. 97-C, for summoning the leave/service record of Defendant No. 2, from his place of working that is

Rajput Regiment Centre Fatehgarh, by the Trial Court on the ground that there was no such pleading

in the suit, the Appellants herein have filed application for amendment of the plaint in an Application

No. 103-A, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and said order was confirmed by the District Judge,

Ghazipur in Civil Revision No. 58 of 2013 by order dated 03.05.2013. The said order has become final.

8. Though the first application for summoning the record in Application No. 97-C was dismissed by the

Trial Court, the Appellants have filed similar application again in Application No. 109-C for the very

same relief, which is also rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

9. In our view the reasons recorded in the orders passed by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the

Revisional Court and High Court are valid and are in accordance with the settled principles of law. It

is clear from the conduct of the Appellants, that in spite of directions from the High Court, for

expeditious disposal of the suit, Appellants-Plaintiffs were trying to protract the litigation.”

Thus, as per settled position of law, if there is no pleading in respect of a fact then neither any evidence can

be lead in respect of the plea which has not been taken nor any benefit can be given to a person.

Moreover, in this regard the claimant/workman has failed to establish and prove by the way of any

material/pleading, documentary/ oral evidence, that his case is similarly situated or stand on same footing as of

persons, who were retained by the Bank and subsequently their services were regularized so, the argument raised on

behalf of the workman/claimant that the action on the part of the respondent bank thereby disengaging the

petitioner/terminating the services w.e.f. 08.11.1992 and retaining the said persons in the Bank, later on regularizing

their services has got no force and rejected.

For the foregoing reasons, the prayer as made by the workman for reinstatement/regularization of his service

is rejected and he is not entitled for the same.

However, looking into the facts of the present case i.e. to say the claimant/workman is litigating his cause

before since 1992 when he was disengaged w.e.f. 08.11.1992 till date, the interest of justice would subserve if a

retrenchment compensation is paid to the claimant/workman to the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five

Thousand only), keeping in view the prevailing price of various essential items, in the preset era in order to carry out

his livelihood by same or other means.

Accordingly, as the claimant/workman’s services have been terminated without following the provisions of

section 25 F of the Act, and he has worked for more than 240 days in last 12 months prior to retrenchment/termination

of his services by the respondent without following the procedure as provided u/s 25 F of the Act, so the Bank is

2042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only) to the workman as retrenchment compensation,

within two months from, the date of receipt of the copy of this award, failing which clamant is entitled for six percent

interest, till the date of actual payment.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 961.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj bykgkckn cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (22/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल- 12011/10/2019- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/10/2019 -IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 22/2019

L-12011/10/2019-IR(B-II) dated 01.05.2019

BETWEEN

The Secretary

Allahabad Bank Staff Association, UP

Vill. Gontauna, PO: Haidergarh

Distt: Barabanki

Lucknow – 225124

AND

The Senior Manager

Allahabad Bank

Zonal Office, Hazratganj

Lucknow

AWARD

As per provisions of clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) vide order dated 01.05.2019, following reference has been referred

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF MANAGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD BANK ZONAL OFFICE,

LUCKNOW PUTTING IN SUSPENSION WITH EFFECT FROM 19.05.2015 TO SHRI

VINDESH KUMAR SINGH, WORKMAN IS WITHIN THE FRAME OF BI-PARTITE

SETTLEMENT APPLICABLE TO THE AWARD STAFF OF BANK/ AND IF NOT, WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO?”

Accordingly, adjudication case No. 22/2019 has been registered before this Tribunal.

Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, authorized representative of the

management today placed on record an order dated 05.03.2019 passed by Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority by

which following punishment has been awarded:

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2043

“अतैः उि प्रकरण ृर सभी िषजष्टकोणों से जवचार करने के उृरांत मैं अृने जववेक का इस्ट्तेमाल करते हुए इस जनष्कषि ृर

ृहुंचता हँ दक आरोजृत कमिचारी के संिर्भित आरोृ (Proved) जसि ृाये गए तिनुसार कमिकारों िेतु अनुिासजनक

कायिवािी की प्रदक्रया, जवजि के संबंि में दिनांक 10 अप्रजल 2002 के समझौता ज्ञाृन (Memorandum of settlement

dated 10.04.2022 on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen) के क्लौि 6(c) के अंतगित आृ ृर

‘सेवाजनवषजत्त लाभ सजित अजनवायि प ृ से सेवाजनवषजत्त िो यानी ृेंिन और/या प्रोजवडेंट फ़ंड और ग्रजचुइटी िजसा दक प्रासंजगक

समय में प्रचजलत जनयम या जवजनयमन के अनुसार िो, िेय िोंगे और भजवष्य में रोिगार (Employment) के जलए अयोग्य

निीं िोंगे का िंड िेता हँ, जिसे तत्काल प्रभाव से लागू दकया िाता िज

आृको यि भी सूजचत दकया िाता िज दक आृको जनलंबन अवजि के िौरान प्राप्त दकए गए जनवाि भत्ते के अजतटरि कोई भी

वेतन, वेतन वषजि, ृटरणामी लाभ आदि निीं िेए िोंगे

Shri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that copy of the order dated

05.03.2019 has already served upon the workman, and a notice in this regard has been published in Hindustan (Daily

Hindi New Paper), a copy of the publication is produced before the Tribunal and kept on record.

Accordingly, he submits that the controversy involved has become infructuous, so the same may be

dismissed.

Vindhyes Kumar Singh/claimant, denies the said facts and submits that copy of the punishment order dated

05.03.2019 has been submitted today only. He further submitted that even if the punishment order dated 05.03.2019

has been passed against Vindhyes Kumar Singh in that circumstances the present reference has not become

infructuous, the same to be decided on merit.

Because as per reference dated 01.05.2019, the only matter to be adjudication by Tribunal is “whether putting

the claimant Shri Vindhyes Kumar Singh in suspension w.e.f. 19.05.2015 is within the frame of bipartite settlement

applicable to the award staff of Bank, if not what relief the workman is entitled to.”

Accordingly, he submits that as workman Shri Vindhyes Kumar Singh has not been placed under suspension

by a competent authority rather by an authority who is junior to the appointing authority so it is a change of service

condition against the terms of bipartite settlement, workman is entitled for relief.

I have heard the learned counsel for opposite party and workman, who is present in person.

Accordingly, the core question is to be considered in the present case what is the scope of change of service

condition of an employee during his employment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as

Act). The relevant section 9A, 33 and schedule IV of the Act, in this regard, reads as under:

“9A. Notice of change.—No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service

applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such

change,—

(a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed

manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or

(b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change—

(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any 2 [settlement or award]; or

(b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the

Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil

Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that

may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette,

apply.

[33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of

proceedings.—(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a

Board or of any proceeding before 1 [an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in

respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,—

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen

concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the

commencement of such proceeding; or

2044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or

otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute,

save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

(2) 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 2 [or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms

of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman],—

(a) 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; or

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, or 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.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), no employer shall, during the

pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, take any action against

any protected workman concerned in such dispute—

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of

service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such

proceedings; or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether by dismissal or otherwise, such protected

workman,

save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a “protected workman”, in relation to an

establishment, means a workman who, being 3 [a member of the executive or other office bearer] of a

registered trade union connected with the establishment, is recognised as such in accordance with

rules made in this behalf.

(4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen for the

purposes of sub-section (3) shall be one per cent. of the total number of workmen employed therein

subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred

protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules

providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions, if any,

connected with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and

recognised as protected workmen.

(5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer, Board, 1 [an arbitrator, a]

labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the

action taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without delay, hear such application and pass, 4

[within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application], such order in relation

thereto as it deems fit:]

[Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient so to do, it may, for

reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit:

Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that

any period specified in this sub-section had expired without such proceedings being completed.]

THE FOURTH SCHEDULE (See section 9A) CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR CHANGE OF

WHICH NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN

1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment;

2. Contribution paid, or payable, by the employer to any provident fund or pension fund or for the benefit of

the workmen under any law for the time being in force;

3. Compensatory and other allowances;

4. Hours of work and rest intervals;

5. Leave with wages and holidays;

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2045

6. Starting, alteration or discontinuance of shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing

orders;

7. Classification by grades;

8. Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage;

9. Introduction of new rules of discipline, or alteration of existing rules, except in so far as they are

provided in standing orders;

10. Rationalisation, standardisation or improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to

retrenchment of workmen; 11. Any increases or reduction (other than casual) in the number of persons

employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or shift, 1 [not occasioned by

circumstances over which the employer has no control].

In a field of service jurisprudence an order of suspension has the effect of debarring a Government Servant

from exercising powers and discharging the duties of his office for the period the order remains in force.

Suspension from service, marks as an interlude before starting a formal disciplinary action. Some time-gap

between placing an employee under suspension and starting a formal departmental proceeding by issue of charge

sheet is imperative. On receipt of serious complaints involving moral turpitude and grave misconduct an employee

may be placed under suspension pending a preliminary inquiry. After the collection of evidence and taking them in

possession, the disciplinary authority may not find any need to keep the employee under suspension and order

revocation of suspension.

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of V.P. Gindroniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 1494 it has

been held that there are three kinds of suspension which are known to law:

(a)

A public servant may be suspended as a mode of punishment.

(b)

He may be suspended during the pendency of an enquiry against him.

(c)

He may merely be forbidden from discharging his duties during the pendency of an enquiry against him,

which act is also called suspension.

In a case of last type of suspension, the Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a power to suspend, either in

the contract of service or in the service rules, the master would have no power to suspend a workman.

Therefore, if he does so, in the sense he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay the wages for the

so called period of suspension.

Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute, suspension

has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is

not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay.

The rules admit of yet another type of suspension which is called “deemed suspension”. In such a case there

is no legal necessity to issue an order of suspension in respect of the employee but, by operation of the Service Rules,

the employee remains on suspension, i.e. he cannot perform duty nor get his pay. This form of suspension is resorted

to when the employee is taken in custody in a criminal action and is kept under custody beyond 48 hours. The effect

of a “deemed suspension” is the same like an interim suspension.

In view of above said facts even if that an employee is placed under suspension by an inferior authority is not

appointing authority of the employees i.e. to say subordinate authority, it is mere an illegality but it cannot be said that

he cannot be placed under suspensions as per rules and further it also amount not a change of service condition of an

employee/workman as per provisions of Section 9A and 33 of the Act.

Thus, the submissions made by the workman in the matter is issue has got no force, rejected.

Keeping in view the said facts as well as the fact that in the mater in which the claimant/workman has been

placed under suspension the final punishment order dated 05.03.2019 has been passed.

So the present reference is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the present adjudication case/reference is dismissed.

No relief is required to be given to the workman.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

2046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 962.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k 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;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (39/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल- 12012/43/2018- आई आर (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

workmen.

[No. L- 12012/43/2018-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 39/2019

Ref. No. L-12012/43/2018-IR(B-II) dated 30.10.2018

BETWEEN

Shri Ajay Kumar Sing S/o Sh. Ganga Prasad Singh

House No. 3/55, Shuklaganj

Janpad Unnao (UP) 209861.

AND

1. Managing Director/Chairman

Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

2. The Regional Manager

Bank of India, Kanpur Region

Regional Office, Kanpur.

3. The Lead District Manager

Bank of India, Unnao (UP)

AWARD

By order No. L-12012/43/2018-IR(B-II) dated 30.10.2018 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:

“kya prabandhan bank of india, kapur va unnao dwara shri ajay kumar singh putra shri ganga

prasad ko dinank 07.09.1991 ko naukari se nikala jana jo kathit 29.08.1984 se karyarat hai,

nyayochit evam vaidh hai? Yadi nahi to shramik kis raahat ko paane ka haqdaar hai?”

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 39/2019 has been registered on 16.08.2019.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has not

filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, workman, Ajay Kumar or his authorized representative has not

turned up before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim, till date.

Findings & Conclusion:

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 30.10.2018.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2047

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, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 963.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj bykgkckn 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;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (21/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/49/2017 - आई आर (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.21/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow

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

[No. L-12011/49/2017 -IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

2048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Residing Officer

I.D. No. 21/2019

Ref. No. L-12011/49/2017-IR(B-II) dated 25.04.2018

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, Allahabad Bank Staff Association U.P.

C/o Allahabad Bank, Hazratganj Branch

Lucknow – 226001

AND

The Deputy General Manager

Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/49/2017-IR(B-II) dated 25.04.2018 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:

“kya prabandhan allahabad bank dwara staff prashikshan kendra Indira nagar ka 3500 varg

feet area par ek stahi full time karmi va 14000 varg feet area mein 04 sthai full time kari ke

pad srijit kar niyukt na kiya jana nyayochit evam vaidh hai? Yadi nahi to kaamgaar kis

raahat ko paane ka haqdaar hai?”

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 21/2019 has been registered on 16.08.2019.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workmen’s union

has not filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, workmen’s union or its authorized representative has not turned up

before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim, till date.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the

claimant/workmen’s union in order to establish its claim as per the reference dated 25.04.2018.

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.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2049

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 workmen’s union 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, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 964.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj dsujk 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;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (70/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2023 - आई आर (ch-II)-18]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 70/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow

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

[No. L-12025/01/2023-IR(B-II)-18]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present:- Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 70/2021

Ref. No. K-10/1-8/2021-IR Dated 27.05.2021

BETWEEN

Shri Alok Kumar, 142-B, Hasemau, Near Amity University

Gate No. 3, Malhor, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow 226028

AND

1. The Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Canara Bank

Head Office, 112-J.C. Road, Bengaluru – 560002

2. The Deputy General Manager, Cara Bank

Head Office, RLFP Wing, 112-J.C. Road, Bengaluru – 560002

3. The Assistant General Manager, HRM Section, Canara Bank

Circle Office, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010.

AWARD

By order No. K-10/1-8/2021-IR Dated 27.05.2021 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:

2050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 17, 2023/JYAISHTHA 27, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of management of Canara Bank in dismissing from services to

Shri Alok Kumar, SWO-A w.e.f. 01.01.2020 is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 70/2021 has been registered on 02.06.2021.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has not

filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, workman, Alok Kumar or his authorized representative has not

turned up before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim, till date.

Findings & Conclusion:

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 27.05.2021.

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, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 965.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkWQ 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;] ल नऊ ds iapkV (78/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल- 12011/35/2019--आई आर (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 78/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 17, 2023/ ज्येष्ठ 27, 1945

2051

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

their workmen.

[No. L-12011/35/2019 -IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 78/2019

Ref. No. L-12011/35/2019-IR(B-II) dated 04.10.2019

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, We Bankers Association

128/75, F, Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur (UP) – 208011

AND

1. The Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda

Regional Office, 3^rd Floor, V-23, Baroda House

Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010

2. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda

Hewett Road Branch, Lucknow.

3. Shir P.S. Jaya Kumar, ME & CEO, Bank of Baroda

Baroda Bhawan, R.C. Dutta Road, Alkapur, Baroda, Gujrat.

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/35/2019-IR(B-II) dated 04.10.2019 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 action of the management of Bank of Baroda in dismissing the services of

Shri Goldie Shrestha during conciliation proceeding without complying with section 33 (1) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified in eye of law? If so, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?”

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 78/2019 has been registered on 23.10.2019.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workmen’s union

has not filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, workmen’s union or its authorized representative has not turned up

before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim, till date.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the

claimant/workmen’s union in order to establish its claim as per the reference dated 04.10.2019.