4408 GI/2023

(2495)

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. 29]

नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 16—िुलाई 22, 2023, िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 25—आषाढ़ 31, 1945

No. 29]

NEW DELHI, JULY 16—JULY 22, 2023, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 25— ASHADHA 31, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1193.—भारतीय िीवन बीमा जनगम अजिजनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित्त

िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जसद्धाथथ मोिन्ती के स्ट्थान पर श्री सतपाल भानू (िन्म

जतजथ: 10.12.1965), अपर क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक (प्रभारी), क्षेत्रीय कायाथलय, भारतीय िीवन बीमा जनगम (एलआईसी),

भोपाल को पि का कायथभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से अजिवर्षथता की तारीख (अथाथत 31.12.2025) तक अथवा

अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, 2,05,400 रुपए से 2,24,400 रुपए के वेतनमान में भारतीय िीवन बीमा

जनगम में प्रबंि जनिेिक के पि पर जनयुि करती िै।

[फा. सं. ए-11011/04/2023-बीमा-I]

जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-03082023-247812

CG-DL-W-03082023-247812

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-03082023-247812

CG-DL-W-03082023-247812

2496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi the 19th July, 2023

S.O. 1193.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (31

of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sat Pal Bhanoo (date of birth: 10.12.1965) Additional Zonal

Manager (In-charge), Zonal Office, LIC, Bhopal as Managing Director, LIC of India in the pay scale of Rs. 2,05,400/-

to Rs. 2,24,400/- vice Shri Siddhartha Mohanty with effect from the date of assumption of charge of office and upto

the date of his superannuation (i.e. 31.12.2025), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. A-11011/04/2023-Ins.I]

VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.

जविेि मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1194.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास न्यूयॉकथ मैं श्री रजव यािव, कजनष्ठ सजचवालय सिायक,

को 11 िुलाई, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवथिन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती

िै।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(22)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (कांसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1194.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ravi Yadav, Junior

Secretariat Assistant in the Consulate General of India, New York, as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular

services with effect from July 11, 2023.

[F. No.T.4330/01/2023(22)]

S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (Consular)

नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1195.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एति्द्वारा, केंर सरकार, 14 िुलाई, 2023 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवथिन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय

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

िै:

क्रम सं. अजिकारी का नाम और पि

)

सवथ

श्री

(

जमिन/पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में

जनयुि दकया गया िै

जिखा ठाकुर,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास,

टोरंटो

जिमांिु त्यागी,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारत का प्रजतजनजि कायाथलय,

अल्माटी

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2497

आयुष िमाथ,

सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास,

हूस्ट्टन

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2023(23)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2023

S.O. 1195.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned

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

with effect from July 14, 2023:

Sl.

No.

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistanct Consular

Officer

Shikha Thakur,

Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India,

Toronto

Himanshu Tyagi,

Assistant Section Officer

Representative Office of India,

Almaty

Ayush Sharma,

Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India,

Houston

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2023(23)]

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

कार्मथक, लोक जिकायत तथा पेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मथक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1196.—केन् र सरकार, एति्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. िीओ (एमएस.) सं. 190/2021/गृि, दिनांक 30.10.2021, गृि (एम) जवभाग के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

श्री जवियकुमार, संयुि सजचव, सतकथता जवभाग, भारी उद्योग एवं लोक उद्यम, नई दिल्ली द्वारा श्री रोक्कम गोपाला राव,

तत्कालीन प्रबंि जनिेिक, हिंिुस्ट्तान न्यूज़हप्रंट जलजमटेड (एचएनएल), वेलूर, कोट्टायम और अज्ञात अन्यों के जवरुद्ध मैससथ

हिंिुस्ट्तान न्यूज़ हप्रंट जलजमटेड (एचएनएल) को 4.5 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन काररत करने के संबंि में ििथ कराई गई

जिकायत दिनांक 23.12.2020, िो भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 में 26.07.2018 से दकए गए संिोिन से पिले के अनुसार) की िारा 13(2) सपरठत िारा 13(1) (सी)

और (डी) और इसके मूल अपरािों के तित िण्डनीय िैं, तथा जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 29.12.2021 को सीबीआई

प्रकरण आरसी0332021ए0005 पंिीकृत दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों)

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

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

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 29.12.2021 से कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/28/2023-एवीडी-II)]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

2498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1196.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No. G.O. (Ms.) No.190/2021/Home dated 30.10.2021, Home(M)

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

post facto w.e.f. 29.12.2021) to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 23.12.2020 lodged by Sh. Vijayakumar, Joint Director, Vigilance Department of Heavy Industry and

Public Enterprises, New Delhi against Sh. Rokkam Gopala Rao, the then Managing Director, Hindustan Newsprint

Limited (HNL), Veloor, Kottayam and unknown others for causing wrongful loss of Rs. 4.5 Crores to M/s Hindustan

News Print Limited (HNL) punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and

substantive offences thereof on which a CBI case RC0332021A0005 has been registered on 29.12.2021 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. 228/28/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1197.—केन् र सरकार, एति्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

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

ज्ञापन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-401/2023-1071/रांची, दिनांक 04.03.2023, गृि, कारागार एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग,

रांची के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, इंजडयन बैंक को लगभग 561.71/- लाख रूपये की सिोषपूणथ िाजन काररत करने िेतु

(1) मैससथ रािेश् वरी आयरन एंड स्ट्टील कंपनी प्रा.जल., (2) श्री सुजमत कुमार केिरीवाल, पुत्र श्री अिोक कुमार

केिरीवाल, जनिेिक, (3) श्रीमजत आिा केिरीवाल, पत्नी श्री अिोक कुमार केिरीवाल, जनिेिक, (4) प्रजतरूपणकताथ

श्री प्रवेि कुमार मुखिी, जनवासी िेख पाड़ा, अन्यतनगर, जबष्णुपुर, अलीपुर, जिला िजक्षण 24 परगना, पजिम

बंगाल, (5) अज्ञात गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों और अज्ञात लोक सेवकों द्वारा इंजडयन बैंक (पूवथवती इलािाबाि बैंक, िमिेिपुर

मुख्य िाखा) से िोखे से ऋण लेने के संबंि में भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45 ) की िारा 120 बी सपरठत

िारा 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (िैसा दक

भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पिले जवजित दकया गया था) की

िारा 13 (2) सपरठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित दकए गए अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से

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

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/41/2023-एवीडी-II)

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2499

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1197.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-401/2023-1071/Ranchi dated 04.03.2023,

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

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

offence(s) under section 120B r/w section 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860),

section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the

amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) alleged to have been committed by (1)

M/s Rajeshwari Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2) Shri Sumit Kumar Kejriwal, S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Director,

(3) Smt. Asha Kejriwal, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kejriwal, Director, (4) Impersonator Shri Parvash Kumar Mukherjee,

R/o Sekh Para, Anyetnagar, Bishnupur, Alipur, District South 24 Paragana, West Bengal, (5) unknown private

persons and unknown public servants pertaining to fraudulently availing loan from Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad

Bank, Jamshedpur Main Branch) causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 561.71 Lakhs to the Indian Bank, 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. 228/41/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 12 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1198.—केन् र सरकार, एति्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपरठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जिमाचल प्रिेि राज्य सरकार की

अजिसूचना सं. गृि(ए)ए(9)-9/2022, दिनांक 21.02.2023, गृि जवभाग, जिमला के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

जिमाचल प्रिेि पुजलस जवभाग में आरक्षक के पि पर जनयुजि के जलए दिनांक 27.03.2022 को आयोजित जलजखत परीक्षा

से पूवथ प्रश्न पत्र लीक करने एवं पररचाजलत करने के संबंि में थाना, अकी, जिला सोलन में भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

(1860 का 45) की िारा 505(2) सपरठत िारा 34 के तित ििथ प्राथजमकी सं. 28, दिनांक 17.04.2022 से िुड़े

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

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

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

[फा. सं. 228/63/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2023

S.O. 1198.—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 Himachal Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. Home(A)A(9)-9/2022 dated 21.02.2023, Department

of Home, Shimla, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Himachal Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to FIR No. 28

dated 17.04.2022 registered at Police Station, Arki, District Solan, under section 505(2) r/w section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) pertaining to question paper getting leaked and circulated before the written

examination for recruitment to the post of Constable in Himachal Pradesh Police Department conducted on

27.03.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or

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

[F. No. 228/63/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 13 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1199.—केन् र सरकार, एति्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-407/2023-2106, दिनांक 12.05.2023, गृि, कारागार एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग के माध्यम से

िारी सम्मजत से, श्री श्याम मांझी, पुत्र श्री बंिी मांझी, वगथ-IV मििूर, सीसीएल ताजपन साउथ एररया, चरिी, िज़ारीबाग

द्वारा श्री जविय प्रसाि मेिता, प्रबंिक, सीसीएल, ताजपन साउथ रेलवे साईहडंग, चरिी, िज़ारीबाग के जवरूद्ध भ्रष्टाचार

जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित दिनांक

08.05.2023 को ििथ कराई गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 15.05.2023 को सीबीआई प्रकरण

आरसी.0242023ए0004 पंिीकृत दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

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

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

जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 15.05.2023 से कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/38/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th July, 2023

S.O. 1199.—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.-407/2023-2106 dated 12.05.2023, Home, Prisons

and Disaster Management Department hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 15.05.2023) to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the

offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 08.05.2023 lodged by Shri Shyam Manjhi, S/o Shri Banshi Manjhi, Cat-

IV Mazdoor, CCL Tapin South Area, Charhi, Hazaribagh against Shri Vijay Prasad Mehta, Manager, CCL, Tapin

South Railway Siding, Charhi, Hazaribagh 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.0242023A0004 has been registered on 15.05.2023 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. 228/38/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 17 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1200.—केन्र सरकार एति्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

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

अजिसूचना संख्या िी.ओ. (एमएस.) सं. 160/2021/गृि, दिनांक 25.09.2021 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मैससथ

मूकाजम्बका िोम्स एंड अपाटथमेंट्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड इसके जनिेिकों श्री अिीत सी.एस एवं श्री आर. सेथुरामन द्वारा

प्रजतजनजित और भू-स्ट्वाजमयों नामत: सुश्री उषा मोिन, श्री अिीथ मोिन और कज़थिारों, नामत: श्री दिनेि मराजयल, श्री

िेमंथ अरेिाथ, श्री अिीथ पलीआथ, श्री अरुण. के.वी, श्री राकेि थीएनचेरी, श्री जबजिथ जवश्वनाथन, श्री अरुण. वी, श्री

स्रीराि. एस., श्री सुभाष चंरन एवं श्री अिीथ कुन्नाथुल्ली और यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के अज्ञात कार्मथकों और अज्ञात अन्य

के जवरूद्ध यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया को 618.17 लाख रूपये के सिोष िाजन पहुुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 20.02.2021 को

श्री वेनुगोपालन. आई.के, सामान्य उप-प्रबंिक, उप क्षेत्रीय प्रमुख, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, एनाथकुलम ग्रामीण द्वारा

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपरठत िारा 420, 467, 468 एवं 471 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (दिनांक 26.07.2018 से प्रभावी भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दकए गए

संिोिन से पूवथ यथा जनजित) की िारा 13(2) सपरठत िारा 13(1) (डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििथ कराई गई

जिकायत और उसके मौजलक अपराि जिन पर दिनांक 27.12.2021 को सीबीआई मामला आरसी0332021ए0004 ििथ

दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि (िों) से िुड़े या उससें सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2501

और/अथवा षडंयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने

के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 27.12.2021 से

कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/24/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2023

S.O. 1200.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No. G.O. (Ms.) No.160/2021/Home dated 25.09.2021, Home(M)

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

(ex post facto w.e.f. 27.12.2021 ) to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 20.02.2021 lodged by Shri Venugopalan. I. K, Assistant General Manager & Dy. Regional Head,

Union Bank of India, Ernakulam Rural against M/s. Mookambika Homes & Apartments Pvt. Ltd. represented by its

Directors Mr. Ajith C.S and Mr. R. Sethuraman and land owners namely Ms. Usha Mohan, Mr. Ajith Mohan and

borrowers, namely Shri Dinesh Marayil, Shri Hemanth Aredath, Shri Ajith Paliath, Shri Arun. K.V, Shri Rakesh

Thiencheri, Shri Bijith Viswanathan, Shri Arun. V, Shri Sreeraj. S., Shri Subash Chandran and Shri Ajith Kunnathully

and unknown Bank officials of Union Bank of India and unknown others for causing wrongful loss of Rs. 618.17

Lakhs to the Union Bank of India punishable under section 120-B r/w section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as

stood before amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and substantive offences

thereof on which a CBI case RC0332021A0004 has been registered on 27.12.2021 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. 228/24/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

कृजष एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय

(कृजष अनुसंिान एवं जिक्षा जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली,18 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1201.—केन् रीय सरकार, कृजष एवं दकसान कल् याण मंत्रालय, कृजष अनुसंिान एवं जिक्षा जवभाग,

रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में

भा.कृ.अ.प. का पूवी अनुसंिान पररसर कृजष प्रणाली का पिाड़ी एवं पठारी अनुसंिान केन् र प् लान् डु, रांची-834010

(झारखण् ड) को, जिसमें 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमथचाररयों ने जिन् िी का कायथसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, एतिद्वारा

अजिसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं.13-05/2020-जिन् िी]

एस. के. उपाध् याय, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2023

S.O. 1201.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose

of the Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of

Agricultural Research & Education hereby notifies the I.C.A.R Research Complex for Eastern Region Farming

2502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

System Research Centre for Hill and Pleateau Region, Plandu, Ranchi-834010 (Jharkhand) where more

than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-05/2020-Hindi]

S.K.UPADHYAY, Under Secy.

वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाजणज्य जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 27 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1202.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाथत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का

22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ परठत जनयाथत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससथ टीसीआरसी इंस्ट्पेक्िन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, प्लाट नं. 337,

सेक्टर-1ए, ओस्ट्लो सर्कथल, टैगोर रोड, गांिीिाम-370201, गुिरात (जिसे एतद्पिात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को

इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषथ के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित

भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में जनर्िथष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना

की सं॰का.आ. 3975, के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िथष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-।, अथाथत,

बॉक्साइट और लौि अयस्ट्क के जनयाथत से पूवथ जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन कांडला पत्तन, ओखा पत्तन और पोरबंिर पत्तन में

उि खजनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाथत् :

(i) यि अजभकरण, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाथत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की

पद्धजत की िाुँच करने के जलये जनयाथत जनरीक्षण पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयाथप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान

करेगी;

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्िथष्ट अपने कायो का जनष् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और

गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयाथत जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलजखत रूप में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा.सं. के-16014/7/2023 - जनयाथत जनरीक्षण]

एम. बालािी, संयुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the, 27th June, 2023

S.O. 1202.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s TCRC Inspections Private Limited, Plot no.

337, Sector- 1A, Oslo Circle, Tagore Road Gandhidham- 370201, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the said

agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Bauxite and Iron Ore, as specified in the Schedule

annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official

Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Kandla

Port, Okha Port, and Porbandar 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 on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2503

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

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

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/7/2023 - Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 27 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1203.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयाथत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससथ एसिीएस इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, प्लाट

नं. 28बी/1(एसपी), 28बी/2(एसपी), जद्वतीय मेन रोड, अम्बातूर इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, अम्बातूर, चेन्नई-600058,

तजमलनाडु, (जिसे एतद्पिात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से

तीन वषथ के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में

जनर्िथष् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975, और दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की

अजिसूचना की सं. का.आ. 3978 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िथष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क

समूि-।, अथाथत, लौि अयस्ट्क तथा समूि-II, अथाथत, बैराइट्स, रेड ओक्सइड और जसलमनाइट के जनयाथत से पूवथ

जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन चेन्नई पत्तन, कामरािर पत्तन तथा कट्टुपल्ली पत्तन में उि खजनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षण

करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाथत् :

(i) यि अजभकरण, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाथत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 तथा खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-II का

जनयाथत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िाुँच करने के जलये जनयाथत जनरीक्षण

पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयाथप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान करेगी;

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में यथाजवजनर्िथष्ट अपने कायो का जनष्पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और

[फा. सं. के-16014/6/2023 - जनयाथत जनरीक्षण]

एम. बालािी, संयुि सजचव

New Delhi, the, 27th June, 2023

S.O. 1203.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s SGS India Private Limited, Plot No 28B/1

(SP), 28 B/2(SP), Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600058, Tamil

Nadu, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication

of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore and

Group II, namely, Barytes, Red Oxide and Sillimanite, 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

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

Ores at Chennai Port, Kamarajar Port and Kattupalli 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 on 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;

2504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

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

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/6/2023-Export Inspection]

M. BALAJI, Jt. Secy.

वस्ट् त्र मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1204.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतगथत आने वाले जनम्नजलजखत कायाथलय, जिनके 80% से अजिक

कमथचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायथसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िैः-

1. राष्ट्रीय फैिन प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (जनफ्ट), पंचकुला पररसर,

सेक्टर 23, पंचकुला, िररयाणा-134116,

2. राष्ट्रीय फैिन प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (जनफ्ट), पटना पररसर,

जमथापुर फामथ, पटना, जबिार-800001

[फा. सं. ई-11016/2/2023-हिंिी]

गौरव कुमार, आर्थथक सलािकार

MINISTRY OF TEXTILE

New Delhi, the 12th July, 2023

S.O. 1204.—In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of Rule 10 of the Official language (Use for official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry of Textile, more

than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

1. National Institute of Fashion Technology, (NIFT) Campus Panchkula, Sector 23,

Panchkula, Haryana-134116

2. National Institute of Fashion Technology, (NIFT) Campus Patna, Mithpur Farms

Patna, Bihar -800001

[F. No. E-11016/2/2023-Hindi]

GAURAV KUMAR, Economic Adviser

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1205.—केन्रीय सरकार, कमथचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के

साथ परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट ऑफ़ सेल के कारखानों और स्ट्थापनाओं

के जनयजमत कमथचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। यि छूट रािपत्र में इस vf/klwpuk के tkjh

gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy-, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाथत्:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2505

(1)

कारखाना और स्ट्थापना छूट प्राप्त कमथचाररयों के नाम और पिनाम जवजनदिष्टथ करते हुए, कमथचाररयों का एक

रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

कमथचारी उि अजिजनयम के अिीन ऐसे फायिे प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको पाने के जलए वे इस अजिसूचना द्वारा

िी गई छूट प्रिान करने की तारीख से पूवथ संित्त अंििानों के आिार पर िकिार िो िाते िैं;

(3)

छूट प्राप्त अवजि के जलए, यदि कोई अजभिाय पिले िी दकए िा चुके िों, तो वे वापस निीं दकए िाएंगे;

(4)

उि कारखाने और स्ट्थापना का जनयोिक उस अवजि की बाबत जिसके िौरान उस कारखाने पर उि

अजिजनयम (जिसे इसमें इसके पिात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रचालन के अध्यिीन था ऐसी जववरजणयां,

ऐसे प्ररूप में और ऐसी जवजिजष्टयों से युि िोगी िो कमथचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 के

अिीन उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

उि अजिजनयम की िारा 45 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जनयुि दकया गया कोई सामाजिक

सुरक्षा अजिकारी या इस प्रयोिन के जलए जनगम का इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकृत कोई अन्य पििारी-

(i) उि अजिजनयम की िारा 44 की उप िारा (1) के अिीन, उि अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी जववरण में

अंतर्वथष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सत्याजपत करने; या

(ii) यि अजभजनियन के जलए दक कमथचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेजक्षत

रजिस्ट्टर और अजभलेख उि अवजि के जलए रखे गये थे या निीं; या

(iii) यि अजभजनियन के जलए दक कमथचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायिों को, जिसके फलस्ट्वरूप इस

अजिसूचना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु रूप में पाने का िकिार िै या निीं; या

(iv) यि अजभजनियन के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िब उि कारखाने और स्ट्थापना के संबंि में अजिजनयम

के उपबंि प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे दकन्िीं उपबंिों का अनुपालन दकया गया था या निीं, जनम्नजलजखत कायथ करने के जलए

सिि िोगा-

(क) प्रिान या अत्यवजित जनयोिक से अपेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस अजिजनयम के

प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या अत्यवजित जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाथलय या अन्य

पररसर में दकसी भी उजचत समय पर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी से यि अपेक्षा करना दक वि कार्मथक के

जनयोिन और मििूरी के संिाय से संबंजित ऐसे लेखा, बजियां और अन्य िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक या अन्य

पििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने िें या ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते िैं;

या

(ग) प्रिान या अत्यवजित जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताथ या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि को, िो ऐसे

कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाथलय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास करने का युजियुि कारण िै दक

वि कमथचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाथलय या अन्य पररसर में रखे गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, लेखा, बिी या अन्य

िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना;

(ङ)

यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना ।

2506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(6)

जवजनवेि या जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रिान की गई छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नई इकाई को छूट के

जलए समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38014/04/2020-एस एस-I]

बी. के. जबस्ट्वास, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2023

S.O. 1205.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’

State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories

and establishments of Bhilai Steel Plant of SAIL from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective

for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

2. The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1) the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names and

designations of the exempted employees’;

(2) the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would have

been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this

notification operates;

(3) the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which

that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns

in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the

Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

(5) a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the said

Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of —

(i) verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section

44 of the said Act for the said period; or

(ii) ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment

to be empowered to —

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may

consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any

person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him

to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal

and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary;

found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account

book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other

premises; or

(e) exercise such other powers as may be specified.

(6) in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38014/04/2020-SS-I]

B. K. BISWAS, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2507

नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1206.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

इंजडयन आयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, िगतहसंघपुर (ओजडिा) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और पारािीप ररफाइनरी

एम्पलॉईस यूजनयन, िगतहसंघपुर (ओजडिा) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-38/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा. सं. एल -30011/22/2022-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jagatsinghpur (Odisha) and Paradip Refinery Employees Union,

Jagatsinghpur (Odisha) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.07.2023.

[No. L-30011/22/2022-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-cum-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

ID Case No. 38 of 2022

Date of passing award – 4^th day of May, 2023

Between :

The Chief General Manager (HR),

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Paradip Refinery Project,

PO-Jimani, Via-Kujang,

Dist-Jagatsinghpur (Odisha)-754141

…

1^st Party Management

(And)

The General Secretary,

Paradip Refinery Employees Union,

C/o-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Paradip Refinery Project,

PO-Jimani, Via-Kujang,

Dist-Jagatsinghpur (Odisha)-754141

…

2^nd Party Union

Appearances :

Mr. Ajay Luhach .

…

For 1^st Party Management

Mr. Sasmaya Kumar Behera

…

For 2^nd Party Union

2508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi have referred the present

dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and their

Workman/Union under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their order No. L-30011/22/2022-IR (M) dated 27.9.2022 to this Tribunal for adjudication

to the following effect.

“Whether demand of Paradip Refinery Employees Union on behalf of Shri Naresh Kumar

Bhuyan and one other against the management of IOCL, Paradip Refinery, Paradip regarding

violation of Sec-33 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by issuing a revised transfer order during the

pendency of conciliation is proper, legal and justified? If yes, what relief these workmen are entitled

to?

After receipt of the schedule of the reference, notice was issued to the 2^nd Party-Union for filing of Statement

of Claim and subsequently the General Secretary of the 2^nd Party-Union and representative of the 1^st Party-

Management, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip appeared and jointly filed their Memorandum of

Settlement in Form–H along with a petition moved by the 2^nd Party-Union for withdrawal of this case.

The 1^st Party-Management and the 2^nd Party-Union in their Memorandum of Settlement have stated that the

change of assignment in respect of the disputant workmen was done for corporation’s requirement and the

management shall regularize the consequent effect of absence and back wages of the concerned workmen as per

service rule related to the change in job assignment. They have also agreed not to make any reference in future for the

same issue of the present settlement.

They have further stated that both of them have understood, agreed and accepted this agreement / settlement

done amicably, with due volition, free from any influence, force from any corner and by virtue of this settlement both

of them have settled the industrial dispute and difference between them. Thus both the parties have jointly filed their

Memorandum of Settlement before this Tribunal for passing of appropriate order for the closure of the present case in

view of the terms of memorandum of settlement.

In view of the discussions made above, it appears that the 1^st Party-Management and the 2^nd Party-Union

have amicably resolved their disputes out of the court and at present no dispute is existing between them for the self

same issue

After considering the facts and circumstance and the submissions of the stake holders of this case, the

Tribunal is of the opinion that whatever dispute was existing between the 1^st Party-Management and the 2^nd Party-

Union has already been settled. Hence the award is passed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at

between the 1^st Party-Management and the 2^nd Party-Union. The Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties in

this case forms part of the award.

This is the award of this Tribunal.

Dictated and corrected by me

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

FORM – H

(See Rule – 58)

FORM OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT MADE ON THIS_________ DAY OF MARCH 2023 UNDER THE

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN OIL

CORPORATION LIMITED (IN SHORT IOCL) REPRESENTED THROUGH Senior Manager (EMS), INDIAN OIL

CORPORATION LIMITED, PARADIP REFINERY, PARADIP AND IT’S 2 NUMBERS OF WORKMEN

REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL SECRETARY, PARADIP REFINERY EMPLOYEES UNION,

PARADIP.

PARTIES TO THE SETTLEMENT

REPRESENTING THE MANAGEMENT:

Shri Ajay Luhach,

at present working as Senior Manager (EMS)

Indian oil Corporation Limited,

Paradip Refinery, Paradip.

REPRESENTING THE WORKMEN

Sri Sasmaya Kr. Behera,

The General Secretary,

Paradip Refinery Employees Uniuon, Paradip

For and on behalf of Sri Naresh Chandra Bhuyan and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2509

Sri Satyajeet Sahoo.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

WHERE AS the workmen Sri NAresh Kumar Bhuyan and Sri Satyajeet Sahoo through their General Secretary,

Paradip Refinery Employees Union, Paradip raised dispute over violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and after reference of the said dispute to the Ld’Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the same

has been registered as I.D. Case No. 38/2022. The reference of the dispute is as follows;

SCHEDULE

“Whether demand of Paradip Reginery Employees Union on behalf of Sri Naresh Kumar Bhuyan and one other

against the management of IOCL, Paradip Refinery, Paradip regarding violation of Section 33 of Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 by issuing a revised transfer order during the pendency of conciliation is proper, legal and justified? If yes,

what relief these workmen are entitled to?

AND

WHEREAS during the pendency of the dispute in question, a discussion between The Employer of Indian Oil

Corporation Limited and Paradip Refinery Employees Union, Paradip representating the workmenSri Naresh Kumar

Bhuyan and Sri Satyajeet Sahooheld on 04-03-2023 and 05-03-2023 to settle the dispute in question and after a

protracted discussion, both the management/employer and the union/workmen agreed to settle the dispute under the

following terms and conditions.

TERMS & CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT

As the change of assignment was done for corporation’s requirement, hence it is mutually agreed between

both the parties to effect this change in job assignment. IOCL management shall regularize the consequent

effect of absence and back wages as per service rule related to this change in job assignment.

That, it is further agreed that no reference can be given in future for same issue of the present settlement.

That, both the parties understand, agree and accept that, this agreement/settlement is amicable and with due

volition and free from any influence and force from any corner and by virtue of the present settlement both

the parties settled the industrial disputeand difference between the parties.

That, it is further agreed that both the parties shall submit this Memorandum of Settlement before the

Hon’ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar so as to accept this settlement and pass

appropriate order for closure of ID case no. – 38/2022 in view of this amicable settlement.

The settlement is signed on this_______ day of March, 2023 in presence of the parties and witnesses.

Signature of Management

Signature of the Union

Representative

Signature of Witnesses

नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1207.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

भारतीय िीवन बीमा जनगम, चूरू (रािस्ट्थान) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री उम्मेि कुमार पुत्र श्री मिावीर

प्रसाि, चूरू (रािस्ट्थान) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बीकानेर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स

2510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

न.- सी.आई.टी.आर. न. 01 ऑफ़ 2010 सी.आई.एस. न. 14 ऑफ़ 2014 को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,

प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -17012/22/2002-IR(M)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. C.I.T.R. No. 01 of 2010 C.I.S. No. 14 of 2014 of the

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bikaner as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam, Churu (Rajasthan) and Shri Ummed Kumar S/o Shri

Mahavir Prasad, Churu (Rajasthan) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 11.07.2023.

[No. L-17012/22/2002-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % d`".k Lo:i pykuk] R.J.S.(DJC)

C.I.T.R.. No. 01 of 2010

C.I.S. No 14 of 2014

CNR NO.RJBK050003602010

fo:)

'kk[kk izcU/kd] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ljnkj'kgj ftyk pw: A

izlax vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½,

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

mifLFkr izfrfuf/k %&

1. izkFkhZ&Jfed ds izfrfuf/k Jh larks"k dqekj lSuh A

2. vizkFkhZ&fu;kstd ds izfrfuf/k Jh xtsUnz [k=h A

izkFkhZ ds lsoki`Fkd fookn esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 26-05-2005 dh ikyuk esa

Je foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼?k½ ds

vUrxZr tkjh vf/klwpuk dzekad L17012/22/2002

22 AUG 2005 ds }kjk izsf"kr bl izlax ds vUrxZr fuEu

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2511

fookn vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ bl U;k;ky; dks Hkstk Fkk %&

^*Whether the action of the management of LIC of India terminating the service of Shri Umed Kumar

W.e.f. 24/06/2002(AN) is Justified ? If not, what relief is the entitled to and from which date ? "

mDr izlax izkIr gksus ij izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k x;k A

izkFkhZ Jfed us LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izLrqr djrs gq, ;g fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds

fu;kstu esa vizkFkhZ ds v/khu 'kk[kk ljnkj'kgj dk;kZy; esa foHkkxh; p;u izfdz;k ds tfj;s p;fur gksdj LFkkbZ fjDr in

ij fnukad 01-04-2002 dks pijklh ds in ij fu;qDr gqvk rFkk viuh fu;qfDr frfFk ls lsoki`Fkd djus dh frfFk 24-06-

2002 rd yxkrkj fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds dk;Zjr deZdkj fu;ksftr jgk A vizkFkhZ laLFkku tks fd ,d vkS|ksfxd laLFkk gS

rFkk izkFkhZ tks fd vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa crkSj deZdkj fu;ksftr gksus ls izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ dk laca/k etnwj ,oa ekfyd dk

jgk gS rFkk izkFkhZ tks fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa ,d vkS|ksfxd deZdkj gksus ls izkFkhZ dh lsok vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

,oa vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e 1957 ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dkuwuu lekIr ugha dh tk ldrh A izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ

ds v/khu fujUrj 85 fnu dk;Z fd;k A bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsok vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa LFkkbZ in ij gksrs gq, Hkh izkFkhZ dks ek=

csjkstxkj djus dh ea'kk ls izkFkhZ dh lsok vizkFkhZ }kjk vius ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad 24-06-2002 dks ckn nksigj ls crkSj

NWVuh ds lekIr dj nh rFkk ,slk djus ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;e dh ikyuk rfud ek=

Hkh ugha dh xbZ A izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vius laLFkku esa dk;Zjr deZdkjksa dh dksbZ

ojh;rk lwph tkjh ugha dh rFkk u gh ,slh fdlh lwph dk izdk'ku gh fd;k rFkk u gh ,slh dksbZ lwph vius dk;kZy; ds

uksfVl cksMZ ij gh pLik dh xbZ A izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk fu/kkZfjr uksfVl vFkok uksfVl

osru rFkk NWVuh eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku Hkh ugha fd;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks lquokbZ dk Hkh volj rd ugha fn;k x;k A

vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa izkFkhZ ds lkFk ds ,oa ckn ds fu;ksftr deZdkj vkt Hkh fu;ksftr gS tks fu;fer lsok dk ykHk izkIr dj

pqds gSa rFkk izkFkhZ tks fd lsok esa fu;kstu ds fy, rRij jgk] dks fu;kstu ds gd ls eg:e j[kus dh uh;r ls izkFkhZ dks

lsoki`Fkd fd;k tcfd mlls dfu"B deZdkjksa dks lsok esa cnLrwj cuk, j[kk A vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus ds

i'pkr vius psgrs O;fDr pqUuhyky gfjtu dks izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij fu;kstu dk ykHk fn;k tkdj mls fu;qfDr nh rFkk

izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu ds gd ls tkucw> dj oafpr j[kk A ;gh ugha vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa izkFkhZ ds in dk dk;Z ,oa in gksrs gq,

Hkh izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu us vkgwr rd ugha fd;k x;k tks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh leLr dk;Zokgh vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 25 ,p ds fo:) jgh gS A izkFkhZ lsoki`Fkd dh frfFk ls vkt fnu rd csdkj ,oa csjkstxkj cSBk gS rFkk vU;=

fu;ksftr ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ ds lsoki`Fkd fookn esa Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;kFkZ gsrq

jsQjsal vkns'k u djus ij izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj ds le{k flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la- 3025@03

lafLFkr djus ij mDr fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 26-05-2005 ij ;g jsQjsal Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk ekuuh;

U;k;kf/kdj.k dks jsQjsal vkns'k Qjek;k x;k A mDr jsQjsal Jheku~ U;k;kf/kdj.k dks izkIr gksus ds i'pkr vizkFkhZ laLFkku

esa izkFkhZ ds in dk dk;Z fjDr gksus ij vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ ds izdj.k dks rduhdh vk/kkj ij yksfir djus dh ea'kk ls vius

i= fnukad 10-08-2004 ds tfj;s izkFkhZ dks vius ewy izek.k i=ksa lfgr vizkFkhZ ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ij izkFkhZ }kjk vius

leLr izek.k i=ksa lfgr lk{kkRdkj ds fy, vkgwr djus ij izkFkhZ }kjk vius leLr izek.k i=ksa lfgr vizkFkhZ ds le{k

mifLFkr gksus ij foi{kh fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ ds lsok fookn ds tsjdkj gksus ls fu;kstu dk ykHk u nsdj bartkj esa j[kk

rRi'pkr vius i= fnukad 17-10-2005 ls iqu% vkgwr dj izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu dk ykHk fn;k x;k ftlds rgr izkFkhZ fnukad

03-10-2005 ls vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh lqtkux< 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq,

fu;fer lsok dk vatke vnk djrk pyk vk jgk gS A bl izdkj izkFkhZ viuh lsoki`Fkd dh frfFk 24-06-2002 ls iqu% lsok

esa fy, tkus dh frfFk 03-10-2005 rd dh frfFk rd dh vof/kdky dh lsok dks fu;fer djkus ,oa mDr vof/kdky dk

2512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

leLr fiNyk osru HkRrk rFkk ns; ifjykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh jgk gS A vUr esa Dyse LVsVesaV izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k x;k

izkFkhZ ds i{k esa rFkk vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fo:) fuEu vuqrks"k dk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr vkns'k Qjek;k tkos %&

¼d½ tfj;s vf/kfu.kZ; ?kksf"kr vkns'k Qjek;k tkos fd izkFkhZ dks mlds fu;kstd }kjk vius ekSf[kd vkns'k fnukad

26-06-2002 dks ckn nksigj ls izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k u gksus ls mDr lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k o blls

lacaf/kr vkns'k dks fujLr Qjek;k tkos rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd dh frfFk ls vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa laosru ,oa lsok dh

fujUrjrk ds ykHk lfgr cgky vkns'k Qjek;k tkos A

¼[k½ izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd dh frfFk ls iqu% lsok esa cgky gksus dh frfFk rd dk leLr fiNyk osru ,oa HkRrk rFkk

ikfj.kkfed ifjykHk tks fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr jgrs gq, izkIr djrk] Hkh iznku djk;k tkos rFkk izkFkhZ ds

lsoki`Fkd fookn ds tsjdkj jgrs gq, vizkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 03-10-2005 dks iqu% prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij lsok esa

fu;ksftr fd, tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd dh frfFk 24-06-2002 ls mDr frfFk rd dh lsok esa fujUrjrk dk ykHk

fn;k tkrs gq, mDr frfFk rd dk ns; ifjykHk iznku djk;k tkos rFkk lsok cnLrwj dk;e j[krs gq, fu;fer lsok dk ykHk

Hkh foi{kh fu;kstd ls iznku djk;k tkos a

¼x½ vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k U;k;ky; mfpr le>s izkFkhZ dks fnyk;k tkos rFkk leLr okn O;; o gtkZ [kpkZ Hkh izkFkhZ

dks vizkFkh fu;kstd i{k ls iznku djk;k tkos A

fu;kstd&vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls bl LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr fd;k x;k A vius tokc esa LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse esa vafdr vf/kdrj enksa dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkfed vkifRr;ksa esa ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dks

prqFkZ Js.kh in ij Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼vLFkkbZ deZpkjh jkstxkj½ funsZ'k 1993 ds vUrZxr iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij

fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, jkstxkj miyC/k djok;k x;k Fkk o mDr funsZ'k ds funsZ'k la[;k ¼viii½ ds vuqlkj fdlh Hkh vLFkkbZ

deZpkjh dk in LFkkbZ gksus dk vf/kdkj l`ftr ugha gks tkrk gS rFkk ,slk vLFkkbZ dk;Zdky mDr vof/k dh lekfIr ij

ftl vof/k ds fy, og dk;Zjr gS dh lekfIr ij Lor% gh lekIr gks tkrk gS A mDr Li"V izko/kku ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks

dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS mDr in ij jgus dk vf/kdkj ugha j[krk gS ftl ij mls vLFkkbZ :i ls fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS rFkk

izLrqr Dyse fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A vkxs enkuqlkj tokc esa ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k fd ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks

foHkkxh; p;u izfdz;k ds tfj;s p;fur gksdj LFkkbZ fjDr in ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ gks A lgh rF; ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe

us vius vkns'k fnukad 27-03-2002 tks fd Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼vLFkkbZ deZpkjh jkstxkj½ funsZ'k 1993 ds vUrZxr

tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij ek= 85 fnu dh fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, lafonk ij fnukad

01-04-2002 ls fnukad 24-06-2002 rd dh vof/k ds fy, fu;qfDr nh Fkh rFkk mDr fu;qfDr i= esa vU; 'krksZ ds vfrfjDr

;g Li"V 'krZ Fkh fd izkFkhZ dh lsok,a mDr vof/k ds i'pkr Lor% gh lekIr gks tkosxh A izkFkhZ us mDr 'krksZ dks Lohdkj

djrs gq, mDr vof/k esa dk;Z fd;k Fkk o izkFkhZ dh lsok,W mDr vof/k fnukad 24-06-2002 dks lekIr gksus ij Lor% gh

lekIr gks x;h] ftlds fy, vyx ls dksbZ vkns'k ugha fudkyk x;k A vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk fdlh Hkh vf/kfu;e vFkok fof/k

ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ :i ls fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, dh

xbZ Fkh A blfy, fdlh ofj;rk lwph dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ :i ls fuf'pr vof/k

ds fy, gh xbZ Fkh A blfy, fdlh uksfVl vFkok eqvkots dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A ;g xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe esa

izkFkhZ ds lkFk vFkok ckn ds dksbZ Hkh deZpkjh vkt Hkh fu;ksftr gks o fu;fer lsok dk ykHk izkIr dj jgs gks A lgh rF;

;g gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼vLFkkbZ deZpkjh jkstxkj½ funsZ'k 1993 ds vUrZxr le; le; ij

vkdfLed dk;Z gsrq fuf'pr vof/k gsrq jkstxkj miyC/k djok;k tkrk gS A ;g xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ ds

LFkku ij pqUuhyky vFkok vU; fdlh O;fDr dks fu;kstu dk ykHk fn;k gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,p vFkok vU; fdlh izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dksbZ dk;Z fd;k gks A lgh rF; ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ

fuxe esa mDr pqUuhyky uked dksbZ O;fDr izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij dk;Zjr ugha gS A izkFkhZ }kjk en la- 10 esa vafdr leLr

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2513

dFku mlds }kjk en la- 11 esa vafdr fd;s dFkuksa ls Lo;a gh fojks/kkHkk"kh gS A izkFkhZ us bl en es Lo;a dks vkt fnukad

rd csjkstxkj gksuk vafdr fd;k gS o en la- 11 esa fnukad 03-10-2005 ls dk;Zjr gksuk vafdr fd;k gS A bl izdkj ;g

Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk >wWB cksydj ek= vizkFkhZ fuxe dks gSjku o ijs'kku djus dh xjt ls izLrqr fookn mBk;k x;k gS]

ftlds fy, izkFkhZ ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg;s A vUr esa izkFkhZ ds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dks e; gtsZ [kpsZ ds

[kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gS A

Lo;a izkFkhZ Jfed lk{; esa mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS A vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa lk{; izLrqr djus gsrq vf/kdj.k }kjk

i;kZIr o leqfpr volj fn;s tkus ds ckotwn Hkh Jfed dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZA blds vfrfjDr Jfed

izfrfuf/k us Hkh tkkfgj fd;k fd os lk{; is'k djuk ugha pkgrsA blh Lrj ij vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk Hkh ;g tkfgj fd;k

x;k fd os Hkh dksbZ lk{; is'k djuk ugha pkgrs gSaA bl ij U;k;ky; }kjk

dks nksuks i{kksa dh lk{;

can dh xbZ A

cgl lquh xbZ rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izkIr funsZ'k dk fuLrkj.k djus ds fy, gesa ;g vo/kkfjr djuk gS fd ^*Whether the action

of the management of LIC of India terminating the service of Shri Umed Kumar W.e.f. 24/06/2002(AN) is Justified ?

If not, what relief is the entitled to and from which date ? "

bl lanHkZ esa jsQjsal dk fu/kkZj.k djus ds fy, igys bl fcanw ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd izkFkhZ dh

lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ ds ,d o"kZ esa izkFkhZ us 240 fnu dh dk;kZof/k iw.kZ dj yh Fkh \ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25

ch esa bl laca/k esa Li"V izko/kku fd;k x;k gS A /kkjk 25 ch esa crkbZ xbZ fujUrj lsok dh vof/k iw.kZ dj fy;s tkus ds

i'pkr ;fn fdlh deZdkj dks lsok eqDr fd;k tkrk gS rks mlh ifjfLFkfr esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q]

25 th] 25 ,p dk ykHk Jfed dks fey ldrk gS A vr% gesa ;g ns[kuk gksxk fd vk;k izkFkhZ }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ch ds vuqlkj mldh lsok eqfDr ds iwoZ ds ,d o"kZ esa fujUrj fo/kku esa crk;s vuqlkj 240 fnu dh

dk;kZof/k iw.kZ dj yh Fkh \ bl lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= esa ;g fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe

ds fu;kstu esa vizkFkhZ ds v/khu 'kk[kk ljnkj'kgj dk;kZy; esa foHkkxh; p;u izfdz;k ds tfj;s p;fur gksdj LFkkbZ fjDr

in ij fnukad 01-04-2002 dks pijklh ds in ij fu;qDr gqvk rFkk viuh fu;qfDr frfFk ls lsoki`Fkd djus dh frfFk 24-

06-2002 rd yxkrkj fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds dk;Zjr deZdkj fu;ksftr jgk A vizkFkhZ laLFkku tks fd ,d vkS|ksfxd laLFkk

gS rFkk izkFkhZ tks fd vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa crkSj deZdkj fu;ksftr gksus ls izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ dk laca/k etnwj ,oa ekfyd

dk jgk gS rFkk izkFkhZ tks fd vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa ,d vkS|ksfxd deZdkj gksus ls izkFkhZ dh lsok vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e

1947 ,oa vkS|ksfxd fookn fu;e 1957 ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dkuwuu lekIr ugha dh tk ldrh A izkFkhZ }kjk

vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fujUrj 85 fnu dk;Z fd;k A blds [k.Mu esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us vius tokc ekax i= esa ;g fuosnu

fd;k gS fd ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks foHkkxh; p;u izfdz;k ds tfj;s p;fur gksdj LFkkbZ fjDr in ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ

gks A lgh rF; ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ fuxe us vius vkns'k fnukad 27-03-2002 tks fd Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ¼vLFkkbZ

deZpkjh jkstxkj½ funsZ'k 1993 ds vUrZxr tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij ek= 85 fnu dh

fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, lafonk ij fnukad 01-04-2002 ls fnukad 24-06-2002 rd dh vof/k ds fy, fu;qfDr nh Fkh rFkk

mDr fu;qfDr i= esa vU; 'krksZ ds vfrfjDr ;g Li"V 'krZ Fkh fd izkFkhZ dh lsok,a mDr vof/k ds i'pkr Lor% gh lekIr

gks tkosxh A izkFkhZ us mDr 'krksZ dks Lohdkj djrs gq, mDr vof/k esa dk;Z fd;k Fkk o izkFkhZ dh lsok,a mDr vof/k fnukad

24-06-2002 dks lekIr gksus ij Lor% gh lekIr gks x;h] ftlds fy, vyx ls dksbZ vkns'k ugha fudkyk x;k A vizkFkhZ

fuxe }kjk fdlh Hkh vf/kfu;e vFkok fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gS A izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr

iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ :i ls fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, dh xbZ Fkh A blfy, fdlh ofj;rk lwph dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk gS A

2514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bl izdkj izkFkhZ ds ekax i= ,oa vizkFkhZ ds tokc ekax i= esa ijLij fojks/kkHkk"k dFku vk;s gSaA LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse es izkFkhZ Lo;a us fu;kstd ds ;gka ek= 85 fnu fujUrj dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA gesa ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ us

vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa mldh lsokeqfDr dh fnukad ls iwoZ ,d dSys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnuksa ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k vFkok ugha \

bl rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj Lo;a izkFkhZ ij gS A izkFkhZ bl lanHkZ esa ekSf[kd vFkok nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dj bl

rF; dks lkfcr dj ldrk Fkk] ijUrq izkFkhZ us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ ekSf[kd vFkok nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS A

;gka rd fd Lo;a izkFkhZ lk{; nsus U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr ugha vk;k A vr% lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ dk vizkFkhZ ds

v/khu 240 fnu dk;Z djus dk rF; lk{; ls lkfcr ughsa gSA

10-

izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= esa vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa LFkkbZ fu;qDr gksdj vizkFkhZ ds v/khu 85 fnu yxkrkj dk;Z

djuk crk;k gS ijUrq bl rF; dks vizkFkhZ us vius tokc ekax i= esa Li"V bUdkj djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ fuxe us

vius vkns'k fnukad 27-03-2002 tks fd Hkkjrh; thou fuxe ¼vLFkkbZ deZpkjh jkstxkj½ funsZ'k 1993 ds vUrZxr tkjh

fd;k x;k Fkk] ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij ek= 85 fnu dh fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, lafonk ij fnukad 01-

04-2002 ls fnukad 24-06-2002 rd dh vof/k ds fy, fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gS A bl rF; dks lkfcr djus

dk Hkkj Lo;a izkFkhZ ij Fkk ijUrq izkFkhZ us viuh LFkkbZ fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa u rks dksbZ ekSf[kd lk{; is'k dh gS rFkk uk gh

fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k ;k vU; dksbZ nLrkost gh is'k fd;k gS] ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ dks

vizkFkhZ }kjk LFkkbZ fu;qfDr nh gks A bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa vizkFkhZ ds dFkukuqlkj izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ rkSj ij

85 fnol ds fy, ¼fn0 01-04-02 ls 24-06-02 rd½ fu;qfDr fn;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA

11-

tgka rd LVsVesaV Dyse dh en la[;k 11 es of.kZr rF;ks dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us vius ekax i= ds iSjk

la0 11 esa ;g of.kZr fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ us vius i= fnukad 17-10-2005 ls iqu% vkgqr dj izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu dk ykHk

fn;k x;k ftlds rgr izkFkhZ fnukad 03-10-2005 ls vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds in ij vizkFkhZ laLFkku

dh lqtkux< 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq, lsok dk vatke vnk djrk pyk vk jgk gS A bl izdkj izkFkhZ viuh lsoki`Fkd dh

frfFk 24-06-2002 ls iqu% lsok esa fy, tkus dh frfFk 03-10-2005 rd dh frfFk rd dh vof/k dky dh lsok dks fu;fer

djkus ,oa mDr vof/kdky dk leLr fiNyk osru HkRrk rFkk ns; ifjykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh jgk gS A vizkFkhZ us vius

tokc ekax i= esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ekax i=- dh en la- 11 esa of.kZr rF;ksa esa ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k

ikfjr djus o izLrqr jsQjsUl fd;s tkus ds rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk bl en esa vafdr 'ks"k rF;ksa dks vLohdkj djrs

gq, izkFkhZ bl en esa vafdr fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k vFkok vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k izkFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A

bl rF; dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj Lo;a izkFkhZ ij Fkk]ijUrq bl lanHkZ esa izkFkhZ us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ ekSf[kd vFkok

nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gS rFkk Lo;a izkFkhZ lk{; es mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS] A vr% lk{; ds vHkko es en la[;k 11

esa of.kZr rF; Hkh izekf.kr djus es izkFkhZ vlQy jgk gSA

12-

bl izdkj mijksDr foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ls Jfed dks gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu yxkrkj

dke djus dk rF; izkFkhZ lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gSA bl vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q 25

th o 25 ,p dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa Jfed dh lsokeqfDr mfpr ,oa oS/k gS rFkk

izkFkhZ dksbZ Hkh jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ dksbZ Hkh jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse

[kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A

13-

vr% dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr mDr izlax dks mRrfjr djrs gq, ;g iapkV fuEu izdkj ls ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS

fd %&

izkFkhZ&Jfed viuh lsok eqfDr fnukad 24-06-2002 ds iwoZ ds ,d o"kZ esa 240 fnu dh dk;Z vof/k iw.kZ dj yh gks] ;g

rF; vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa iw.kZ :i ls vlQy jgs gSa A vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa the action of the management of LIC

of India terminating the service of Shri Umed Kumar W.e.f. 24/06/2002(AN) is Justified. bl izdkj izkFkhZ LVsVesaV vkWQ

Dyse esa ntZ dksbZ Hkh jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSa A vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ& Jfed }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV

vkWQ Dyse vizkFkhZ&fu;kstd ds fo:) vLohdkj fd;k tkdj ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS A

mDr vf/kfu.kZ; vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17¼1½ ds vUrZxr dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ Hkstk

tkos A

d`".k Lo:i pykuk] U;k;k/kh'k

14-

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt

dks esjs }kjk foo`r U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr dj lquk;k x;kA

नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1208.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससथ लाइफ इन्िुरेन्स कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया, पटना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और नेिनल लाइफ इन्िुरेन्स

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2515

एम्प्लाइि एसोजसएिन, पटना के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, पटना, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.-02 (सी) 2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -17012/24/2016-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Life Insurance

Corporation of India, Patna and National Life Insurance Employees Association, Patna which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.07.2023.

[No. L-17012/24/2016-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No.:- 02 (C) of 2017

Between the management of Sr. Divisional Manager, M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan

Prakash, Divisional Office No.-1 Frazer Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001 and Their workman Sri Bhakta Mahendra, Ex-

Part Time Gardener, represented by through the General Secretary, National Life Insurance Employees Association,

A/51, Sachiwalya Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna (Bihar-800020.

For the management:-

Sri Neeraj Narain Priyadarshi, Administrative

Officer, (Legal) LIC of India.

For the workman:-

Sri Amrendra Kumar Ojha, General Secretary of

said Union.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt- 24^th May, 2023.

By the adjudication order no.- L-17012/24/2016-IR(M) New Delhi, dated- 30.03.2017 the Govt. of India

Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the

management of Sr. Divisional Manager, M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Prakash, Divisional Office

No.-1 Frazer Road, Patna (Bihar)-800001 and Their workman Sri Bhakta Mahendra, Ex- Part Time Gardener,

represented by through the General Secretary, National Life Insurance Employees Association, A/51, Sachiwalya

Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna (Bihar-800020. For adjudication to this tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Patna in terminating the

service of Sri Bhakta Mahendra, Ex-Part Time Gardener w.e.f. 27.12.2013 without following the procedure

under section 25F of I.D.Act is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned worker is entitled to

and from which date?”

Upon the receiving the reference schedule this tribunal issued notice to both the sides. Both parties appeared

and filed their written statement.

2516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The contention of the workman as per his statement of claim is that the workman Bhakta Mahendra was duly

appointed by the management vide S.R No.- 326889 as part time gardener in the month of January 1992. The

workman served the corporation sincerely and regularly for more than 22 years. It is further asserted during

the course his service period his daughter died of illness due to want of proper medical aids and poor diet.

Due to death of his daughter and sick health of his wife the workman himself became perplexed with

disturbance of his peace of mind. It is further asserted that for the welfare and proper treatment of his wife,

but the workman absented from office but he used to inform from time to time to his office about his

absence. It is further asserted that the management did not take the cognizance of his request and whimsically

issued him a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice on 20.11.2013 with pre-determined mindset to remove

from the service of the corporation and finally workman has been removed from his service w.e.f.

27.12.2013. It is further asserted that workman submitted his appeal and memorial to the appellate authority

against the punishment order dt- 27.12.2013 but his appeal has been turned down by LIC of India with his

negative attitude. It has been further asserted that all the authorities the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate

Authority and Chairman did not apply their own mind and wisdom in a justified way and also not keeping in

view of principles of HRD and principle of natural and social justice as well as fair practice and they passed

order arbitrarily. It is also asserted that management did not consider the medical certificate of fitness of the

workman and there by he was not allowed to resume his duties. Management resorted an Unfair Labour

Practice ignoring the resumption of the duty of the workman, When he came to the office to join after fitness.

The workman seek following relief:-

(I) To quash the charge sheet -cum-show cause notice dt-20.11.2013 and the punishment order

dt- 27.12.2013.

(II) To quash the order dt- 17.05.2014 of the Appellate Authority.

(iii) To reinstate the service of the workman with full back salary along with consequential benefits.

(iv) To compensate all the relief and benefits which the workman has been made to suffer mentally

personally and socially

(v) Any other relief as tribunal may deem fit.

On the other hand the contention of the management is that present reference is bad in law and the same is

not fit to be adjudicated. The reference has been arisen without any cause of action hence it is liable to be

dismissed. It is further asserted that Bhakta Mahendra is not a workman in relation to the management of Life

Insurance Corporation, as the petitioner /workman was appointed on probation as part time employee for the

post of gardener on13.01.1992. It is further asserted that the petitioner / workman was in habit of absent from

the duty without prior information or sanction of leave by the competent authority. The petitioner/workman

was absent from 13.12.2010 in violation of laid down rules and regulation. Prior his absence he was already

sanctioned 290 days extra ordinary leave. The management vide letter dt- 16.02.2011, 14.09.2011, and

24.03.2013 intimating to the petitioner / workman through speed post regarding his absence from duty that

was unauthorized and he was advised to resume his duty immediately failing which a disciplinary proceeding

will be initiated but yet the petitioner / workman did not resume his duty moreover the petitioner / workman

neither sent reply to any letter sent by the management and he did not come to join his duty. Petitioner/

workman also did not reply to the explanation called for from the management side vide letter dt- 02.07.2013

and 19.08.2013. It is further asserted that when the petitioner / workman did not join his duty the manager

(Estate ) Sri S.K.Pandey was asked to conduct an enquiry vide letter dt- 24.09.2013. Who visited the

permanent address of the petitioner /workman and found he was absolutely fine and he was living normal

life. Sri S.K.Pandey also reported to the management, the petitioner / workman has admitted he has received

all the communications and petitioner / workman gave a written assurance to resume his duty on 21.10.2013.

It has been further asserted that the petitioner / workman has given a letter on 21.10.2013 to allow him to

resume duty and mentioned the cause of absence due to sickness of wife and children. It is further asserted

that a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice dt-20.11.2013 was issued to the petitioner /workman because his

absence from duties from 13.12.2010 attracted the provision of Regulation 39 (4) (iii) of the LIC of India

Staff) Regulation, 1960 read with explanation one. This rules itself states that a employee shall be deemed to

have abandoned his post if he absents himself from duty without leave sanctioned for the continuous period

of 90 days without intimation in writing. It is further asserted that on receiving charge sheet- cum- show

cause notice dt- 20.11.2013. The petitioner / workman filed his reply on 13.12.2013 but the management

Disciplinary Authority did not find the reply satisfactory and passed an order on dt- 27.12.2013 imposing

penalty removal from the service which was commensurate with the gravity of misconduct of which the

petitioner was found guilty. It is further asserted that the Chairman and the Appellate Authority had

meticulously observed the contentions raised by the petitioner / workman in his appeal and in his Memorial

dt- 25.03.2014 and 04.01.2016 respectively but competent authority they did not find any merit in his appeal

and memorial warranting interference with the penalty “ Removal from service” imposed by the competent

authority. It is further asserted the petitioner /workman was found guilty of misconduct by remaining

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2517

unauthorizedly absence from duty without prior intimation and sanction of leave from office and the penalty

imposed by the competent authority following commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. The principle

of natural justice was thoroughly followed by giving ample opportunity to workman to resume his duty but

he remained absent continuously for about three years. Accordingly, the claim of the workman Sri Bhaka

Mahendra is fit to be rejected.

Upon pleading of the rival parties and the terms of reference, the following points arise due for the

adjudication:-

(a) Whether the dispute as raised by the Sri Bhakta Mahendra is an Industrial Dispute as defind u/s 2(K)

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

(b) Whether the management has refused the workman Sri BhaktaMahendra to resume his duty when he

has given written application for his joining on 21.10.2013 is justified.

27.12.2013 without following the procedure of section-25(F) of the I.D.Act is legal and justified?”

FINDINGS

First of all this tribunal takes the first point for the adjudication. It has been pleaded by the management side

since Bhaka Mahendra is not a workman hence dispute as raised by the Bhakta Mahendra is not maintainable

under the Industrial Dispute Act. Moreover, this dispute is not an Industrial Dispute as defined under section-

2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act. First of all definition of Industrial dispute that mentioned in section 2(K) of

the I.D.Act is to be securitized Section-2(K) “ Industrial dispute” means any dispute or difference between

employers and employer, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen,

which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the

conditions of labour of any persons. This section itself denotes that any dispute between employer employee

and between workmen and workman that relates to with the employment or non employment and a condition of

labour of any person comes under the purview of Industrial Dispute. Here to decide as to whether this dispute

as raised in this case is an industrial dispute or not, It has to examine first Whether Bhakta Mahendra acquires

the status of the workman or not i.e defind in section 2(S) of the I.D.Act. Section 2(S) says- “workman means

any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any

such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that

dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such

peson.

(i)

Who is subject to theAir Force Act, 1950 (45 or 1950 ), or the Army Act, 1959 46 of 1950),

or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957 ); or

(ii)

Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison , or

(iii)

Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv)

Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws was exceeding [ ten thousand rupees ]

per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason

of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]

As per the claim of the workman Bhakta Mahendra he was appointed as a part time gardener by the

management and his salary roll no.- 326889. This claim of the workman Bhakta Mahendra

established this fact LIC where Bhakta Mahendra was working is an employer and Bhakta

Mahendra the part time gardener that come under the purview of employee ( workman ) and during

the course of the his service, he has been dismissed from the service that’s why this dispute was

raised by the union of Employee of LIC on behalf of the workman when he was removed from the

service. Accordingly the status of the Sri Bhakta Mahendra was workman under the provision of

2(S) of the I.D.Act and the dispute raised by the his union to challenge his removal from service

before the conciliation officer an employee of LIC is an Industrial Dispute as derived in section

2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the workman Sri

Bhakta Mahendra.

Now point no.-(ii) & (iii) are taken together for adjudication to decide these issues, this tribunal

securitizes the evidence as brought by the rival parties on the record.

2518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On behalf of the management one witness namely Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha has been examined as a

M.W-1. Besides oral evidence the following documents have been marked as Exts by the

management i.e

(i)

Ext.-M/1- Letter of dt- 14.09.2011 issued by the manager (E&OS) to Manager

(P&IR) of LIC of India

Divisional Office-1 regarding absence of Sri Bhakta

Mahendra from 13.12.2010 to 14.09.2011.

(ii)

Ext.-M/2-Lletter of dt-16.02.2011 issued by Manager, LIC to Bhakta

Mahendra for regarding his absence from 13.12.2010 to 16.02.2011.

(iii)

Ext.-M/2-1-Letter dt- 14.09.2011 issued by manager, LIC to the Bhakta

Mahendra regarding his absence from 13.12.2010.

(iv)

Ext.-M/2-2-Letter of dt- 24.04.2013 issued by Manager (E&OS) to Bhakta

Mahendra for his unauthorized absence since 13.12.2010.

(v)

Ext.-M/2-3-Letter of dt- 02.07.2013 issued by Manager (P&IR) to Bhakta

Mahendra for his unauthorized absence.

(vi)

Ext.- M/2-4 Letter of dt- 19.08.2013 issued by manager of LIC to Bhakta

Mahendra regarding his unauthorised absence,

(vii)

Ext.—M/3--Letter of dt- 24.09.2013 issued by manager (P&IR) to

S.K.Panday, Manager (Estate), Patna for conduct anenquiry regarding

absence of Bhakta Mahendra from service.

(viii)

Ext.-M/3-1-Report of S.K.Pandey, Manager (Estate)

dt- 18.10.2013.

(ix)

Ext.- M/4--Application of Bhakta Mahendra of dt-21.10.2013

addressing to Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC Patna Zone for

permission to resume his duty.

(x)

Ext.—M/4-1--Charge sheet cum show cause notice issued by

Sr.Divisional Manager on 20.11.2013 to BhaktaMahendra.

(xi)

Ext.- M/4-2--Explanation of Bhakta Mahendra of dt-13.12.2013 to

Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC, Patna.

(xii)

Ext.-M/4-3--Order of Disciplinary Authority Sr. Divisional Manager

passed an order dt- 27.12.2013.

(xiii)

Ext.- M/5--Order of Zonal Manager ( Appellate Authority ) passed on

order dt- 17.05.2014.

On the other hand workman side examined two witnesses namely W.W-1 (Bhakta Mahendra) and

W.W-2 Murari Pd. Besides oral evidence workman side got only one document marked Ext. i.e Ext.-W. Letter given

by Bhakta Mahendra to join his service from Monday.

10.

M.W-1 is of Sri Arbind Kumar Sinha (CRM) LIC of India, Divisional Office, Bhagalpur. Who stated

before this tribunal that Bhakta Mahendra, the workman /petitioner was appointed on probation as Part Time

employee for the post of Gardener on 13.01.1992 and he was in habit of remaining absent from duty without prior

intimation or sanction of leave by the competent authority. This witness also stated that he was absent from

13.12.2010 however he was already sanctioned 290 days extra ordinary leave (EOL). This facts was communicated by

the manager (OS) to Manager (P&IR) , Divisional Office, Patna vide letter dt-14.09.2011 and the same is marked him

as Ext.-M/1. This witness also stated that the letters dt- 16.02.2011, 14.09.2011 and 24.04.2014 were sent to the

Bhakta Mahendra through speed post intimating him the absence from duty was unauthorised but Bhakta Mahendra

neither reported to his duty nor filed any reply and he also did not reply of explanation called for from him vide letters

dt- 02.07.2013 and 19.08.2013 and all the letter are proved by this witness i.e marked Ext.- M/2 series. This witness

further stated that when the workman did not join his duty, the manager (Estate) Sri S.K.Pandey was asked to conduct

an enquiry vide letter dt- 24.09.2013 i.e marked Ext.- M/3. This witness further stated that Mr S.K.Pandey visited to

the permanent address of workman Bhakta Mahendra and found him absolutely fine and living a normal life the

S.K.Pandey has filed his enquiry report vide letter dt- 18.10.2013 i.e marked as Ext.- M/3-1. This witness also stated

that S.K.Pandey in his report mentioned that workman admitted that he received all the official communication made

to him and workman gave a written assurance to resume his duty from 21.10.2013. This witness also admitted that the

workman requested vide letter dt- 21.10.2013 to allow him to resume duty and gave the cause of his absence due to

sickness of wife and children. This witness further stated that a charge sheet cum show cause notice dt-20.11.2013

was issued to the workman for his long absence from 13.12.2010 that attracts the provision of Regulation 39(4)(iii) of

the LIC of India ( Staff ) Regulation,1960. This witness also submitted his reply vide letter dt- 13.12.2013 but

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2519

management LIC did not find the reply satisfactory. Then competent authority imposed penalty of “Removal from

Service”. This witness also proved the request letter dt- 21.10.2013 given by workman, charge sheet of dt- 20.11.2013

and the reply of the workman dt-13.12.2013 and the order of the competent authority dt-27.12.2013 i.e marked as

Ext.- M/4 series. This witness further stated that the Chairman and the Appellate Authority also did not find any merit

in the appeal and the memorial letter issued by the workman vide dt- 25.03.2014 and 04.01.2016 respectively and both

the letters has been not considered by the Chairman and Appellate Authority. This witness also proved the order of

Appellate Authority dt-17.05.2014 which is marked as Ext.- M/5. This witness further stated that the workman

violated prescribed rules of the corporation by remaining absence from duty about three years and even after receiving

letters from the LIC, the workman did not sent any reply that’s why workman was found guilty, of misconduct and so

the proper penalty has been imposed by the LIC.

In cross-examination, this witness categorically admitted that he was also posted as Administrative office

(P&.IR), Patna division office-1 from 2011 to 2016 at and that time Sri Bhakta Mahendra was working in divisional

office as part time gardener. This witness also admitted that the workman was not directly related to my department

rather he was attached with the service department of LIC. In para-17 of the cross-examination this witness

categorically admitted he does not know, the wife of the workman had informed to the LIC Office about the illness of

workman due to jaundice. This witness also admits that he does not know whenever the workman went on leave, he

used to file leave application. In para-18 of his cross-examination this witness also admits that he does not know,

when the LIC generally intimate to his employee about his absence from duly. In para-19 of the cross-examination

this witness categorically admitted that before issuance of charge sheet, an officer S.K.Pandey ( Sourav Kumar

Pandey ) visited to the house of workman and he has filed a report dt- 18.10.2013 i.e marked as Ext.- M/3-1. This

witness also admits in para-20 of his cross-examination the workman has given an application on 21.10.2013 for

resuming his duty but he was not allowed to join. In para-21 of his cross-examination this witness admits that from

charge sheet to passing of final order it takes about six months period. In para-24 of his cross-examination, this

witness categorically admits that he does not know the workman had come to the office after recovery of illness

several times but he was not allowed to join the duty.

This evidence of this witness appears not very concrete and convincing to the claim of management about

absence from duty without any information as in cross-examination this witness did not deny that the wife of

workman has informed to the LIC about the illness of workman due to jaundice. Also did not deny this facts that the

workman after recovery from illness visited his office to resume his duty but he was not allowed to join. This witness

also admits that when the enquiry officer S.K.Pandey visited to the house of workman, the workman has given him an

assurance letter to resume his duty but he was not allowed. This witness being a senior officer did not disclose why

the workman has not been allowed to join duty when he has served a letter of his joining from 21.10.2013 to the

enquiry officer. This witness appears to be a formal witness from the management side just to prove the letters and

orders as produced by the LIC department as this witness is not fully aware about the affairs of workman.

11.

On the other hand workman also examined two witnesses namely W.W-1 Bhakta Mahendra workman

himself and W.W.-2 Murari Pd. Besides oral evidence the workman side proved only one document that is assurance

letter given to the enquiry officer to join duty on 21.10.2013 i.e marked as Ext.- W.

12.

First of all, this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of Bhakta Mahendra (W.W-1) who deposed before this

tribunal on 05.12.2018 on that date he claimed his age 55 years. Who stated before this tribunal that he has joined the

service in LIC as a gardener on 14.01.1992. This witness also stated that he has removed from the service in

December 2013. This witness further stated that he used to inform orally for his leave and when ever he returns to his

service he used to file written application. This witness categorically stated that he did not remain continuously

absence from his duty for three years rather he admitted, due to the prolong illness of wife and he was himself

suffering from jaundice for a long time and due the death of his daughter of illness are the reasons of his absence

from duty. This witness further stated that one officer of LIC came to his house and met him and he has taken a note

from him in which he has written he will join the service from 21.10./2013 and as per written commitment he came to

office to join duty but he was refused to join his service. This workman also stated that he still wants to serve LIC

with commitment and this witness proved his written note given to enquiry officer for the resuming duty i.e marked

as Ext.-W.

In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-9 he joined the service on 14.01.1992 and

when ever he went on leave he used to file leave applications. He categorically admits that he does not know the rule

how many days a employee can avail leave without permission. In para-11 this witness categorically stated that LIC

office sent letters to him intimating for joining the duty but he received only two letters and two letters were received

by his son. He also admits in cross-examination that his wife and his son visited twice to LIC Office with the

application of my absence from duty but their prayer and application are not taken by the LIC. In para-12 of the cross-

examination, this witness categorically admits that one LIC Officer came to his village and he has given a written note

to him about his joining when he came to office to join his duty, he was not allowed. He also admits that he has filed

2520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the reply of charge sheet cum show cause and he had mentioned the reasons of his absence from duty in his reply. In

para-16 categorically stated that he approached to manager (OS) for joining his duty thereafter requested to manager

(P&IR) for his joining who reported him he will talk to the Sr. Manager for the joining. On scrutinizing the evidence

of this workman, it appears that due to prolong illness of his wife and jaundice suffering and death of his daughter, he

could not join but at the same time he also admits in cross-examination his wife and son informed to the LIC about his

absence from duty but they were not cared by the LIC and his evidence also satisfies this facts that he has given a

written note to join the duty on 21.10.2013 i.e marked Ext.-W but he was not allowed to join service but no reason

assigned by the management side for not allowing him to join even after getting a written note from workman

moreover he has been cross-examined at length by the management side but failed to discard his testimony that could

suffice the management claim about continuous absence from duty without any intimation.

13.

W.W-2 Murari Pd who also a temporary employee of the LIC. Who stated before this tribunal that he

knows the Bhakta Mahendra from the year 1995 who was working as part time gardener in divisional office of LIC.

This witness also stated that he came to know that Bhakta Mahendra was on long leave due prolong illness of his

daughter and the illness of his wife and due to the death of his daughter. This witness also admitted that some time

Bhakta Mahendra was remained absent from the duty without seeking permission. This witness also admitted that this

facts, when the Bhakta Mahendra was not able to resume his duty, his son came to LIC Office some times and filed

leave application. He also stated that after recovery Bhakta Mahendra came to office to resume his duty but he was not

allowed to join. This witness also admitted that Bhakta Mahendra was doing his job as part time gardener four hours

per day. This witness also stated that Bhakta Mahendra had filed medical certificate along with joining request letter.

In cross-examination this witness categorially stated in para-5 that he was a temporary caretaker in LIC

from 1995 and he was terminated from service in the year 2007 because he has requested to the management to pay

minimum wages. This witness also stated in cross-examination that he has filed a writ against the order of the

management in the Hon’ble High Court, Patna i.e pending. In para-16 of his cross-examination this witness

categorically stated that due to illness of daughter, wife and himself. Bhakta Mahendra was absent most of the time

from the year 2010. In para-7 of cross-examination, this witness categorically stated that Bhakta Mahendra had sent

the information to LIC about the death of his daughter and illness of his wife but he cannot say exact date. In para-11

this witness categorically stated he does not know about the rule of unauthorised absence and he cannot say how many

days a employee can avail leave without leave application. This witness categorically stated in para-12 Bhakta

Mahendra has filed an appeal against the order of the LIC. Thus this tribunal finds that this witness was well aware

about the facts of Bhakta Mahendra and he has corroborated the version of Bhakta Mahendra here before this tribunal.

Moreover, management side could not controvert the evidence of this witness in the course of cross-examination.

Even the management did not challenge the evidence of this witness in cross-examination.

14.

It is argued from the management side that the workman Bhakta Mahendra is not under the category of

workman in relation to the management of LIC and so his case is not maintainable at all. It has been also argued that

Bhakta Mahendra has been absent from duty for about three years and even after intimation of unauthorised leave,

Bhakta Mahendra neither came to office to resume his duty nor filed any reply to any letter received from the LIC.

Management side also stressed on the report of manager (Estate) S.K.Pandey i.e Ext.-M/3-1. Where the enquiry

officer reported he has found Bhakta Mahendra absolutely fine living normal life and who had also given written

assurance to resume his duty from 21.10.2013. It is also argued that LIC had issued a charge sheet cum show cause

notice on 20.11.2013 to the workman and the workman filed his reply on 13.12.2013 but management side did not

find proper explanation given by the Bhakta Mahendra and found his continuous absence attracts the provision of

regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC of India (Staff) jRegulations,1960 and as per this provisions penalty of “Removal from

service” has been proposed and letter on it was affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority

finding no plausible reasons assigned by the Bhakta Mahendra about his absence from the duty. The management side

also followed the principle of natural justice giving ample opportunity to Bhakta Mahendra to defend himself.

Accordingly the Disciplinary action as taken by management was proper within the rule of LIC. But this tribunal is

not convinced to the management contention as placed by the management side. This tribunal finds that Bhakta

Mahendra was appointed as a part time gardener i.e well covered under the provision of workman as enshrined in

section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act. So claim of the management Bhakta Mahendra was not workman is not

acceptable. Further the workman had duly admitted that due to prolong illness of daughter and wife and suffering

from jaundice. He has been absent from the duty for long time in the year 2010-11 at the same time workman also

claimed he was not absent three years continuously, this admission of the workman is not controvertered by the

management side by any cogent evidence as workman himself and W,W-2 Murari Pd the witness from the workman

side duly stated in their evidence the wife and son informed to the LIC office twice with written leave application

about absence of Bhakta Mahendra but this facts is not controverted by the management side while cross-examining

there two witness before this tribunal so there is no force in the contention of management he was absent continuously

for three years. Moreover, letters issued by management LIC dt-14.09.2011, (Ext.-M/1) letter dt- 16,02.2011 (Ext.-

M/2), are written in English however workman is not a literate person who could understand spirit of the letter.

Further the management side stressed over the report of enquiry officer Sri S.K.Pandey who was deputed as a enquiry

officer by the LIC vide letter dt-24.09.2013 (Ext.-M/3) in which S.K.Pandey manager (Estate) was authorised to

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2521

conduct enquiry by visiting personally at employee’s house and to collect the feedback from his neighboures. This

tribunal finds that S.K.Pandey, the enquiry officer visited the village house of the Bhakta Mahendra i.e also accepted

by the Bhakta Mahendra. The report of S.K.Pandey appears to be contradictory as he stated in his report (Ext.-M/1) he

found the employee absolutely fine and living normal life and he also mentioned in report the employee and family

member expressed the desire to continue his service. But at the same time he also reported he found out in his persona

that the fellow is suffering from a psychological disorder otherwise he is mentally sound and this enquiry officer also

reported the employee Bhakta Mahendra also assured to resume his duty on 21.10.2013 for which Bhakta Mahendra

has a given note. This tribunal found that this enquiry officer did not comply the direction given by the LIC

management as this enquiry officer did not take any statement of employee Bhakta Mahendra and even did not

conduct any enquiry of the family member of employee and did not make any query to any neighbors in written from

that could suggest whether the employee Bhakta Mahendra was absent intentionally or he was victim of

circumstances. This enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry properly. LIC management relied on only one

contradictory findings of enquiry report (Ext.-M/3-1) showing by the enquiry officer he found the employee

absolutely fine and living normal life and all the competent authority of LIC drew a inference the employee was

deliberately did not join his service. This finding of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority is quite

unconvincing and unreliable because enquiry officer has given one side report without conducting a proper enquiry

moreover, no LIC officer has taken this statement of enquiry officer i.e the employee Bhakta Mahendra is suffering

from the psychological disorder. This factual note of enquiry officer is ignored by all the LIC Officials who passed an

abrupt order without proper securitizing of the matter of employee. This tribunal further finds that the management

side took plea all the order has been passed within the provision of LIC Staff Regulation, 1960. This tribunal further

finds section 2 of his regulation says this regulation shall apply to every whole time ( salaried ) employee of the

corporation unless otherwise provided by the terms of any contract agreement of letter of appointment. From plain

reading of this regulation it appears that this rules is applicable to only on whole time employee, however employee

Bhakta Mahendra was appointed as a part time gardener and he was not whole time employee. Further the

management side did not place the letter of appointment of this employee that could show the appointment of this

employee is well covered under the LIC ( Staff ) regulation 1960. This tribunal also finds that the management side

did not give proper opportunity to the employee and did not assign any reason when the enquiry officer reported and

the employee assured to resume his duty on 21.10.2013with a proper application but why the management LIC

refused his prayer and plea reasons best known to the management. So management side also did not follow the

principle of natural justice in true spirit rather with premeditated mind set passed an abrupt wrong order of the

removal from service because the management side has given charge sheet cum show cause notice after one months of

the letter given by the workman for joining his duty with the proper explanation on 21.10.2013. This tribunal further

finds that the workman has duly prayed before the authority of LIC he has served 22 years without getting any adverse

remarks from the LIC but his previous service record is not considered by the any authority of LIC at the time of

passing order that ought to be considered by the LIC. Moreover, reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority and

appellate authority not considering this prayer of workman is very unconvincing and unacceptable.r

15.

On scanning all the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record as discussed above this

tribunal finds that the workman fairly admitted that he was victim of circumstances as due to illness of wife and

prolong illness of his minor daughter followed by her death and thereafter the workman was himself suffering from

acute jaundice, workman remained absent from his duty in the year 2010-11 at the same time he claimed the

management was duly informed by his wife and son twice with the leave applications but they were not entertained by

the LIC Office. This tribunal finds that this claim of the workman was not controvertered by the management by any

cogent evidence before this tribunal. So charges as leveled against the workman, he was continuously absent for three

years without any intimation is not at all proved by the management side. Further this tribunal finds that management

relied on the enquiry report ( Ext.-M/3-1) placed by the S.K. Pandey who himself gave a contradictory findings in his

report about the workman. This tribunal finds that enquiry officer placed the assurance letter given by the workman to

resume his duty from 21.10.2013 but when the workman Bhakta Mahendra came to LIC Office to join his duty on

21.10.2013 with reasonable explanation of his absence from duty, he was denied to resume his duty and the

management side did not assign any reason for depriving him to join duty moreover, taking the advantage of the

illiteracy of the workman, all of sudden management sent a charge sheet cum show cause notice to the workman on

20.11.2013 in English version with proposed punishment of removal from service, it all shows that the role of the

management was the beyond the provision of principle of natural justice, so this tribunal finds and hold that denial of

LIC of management for not allowing the workman to resume his duty on 21.10.2013 is not legal and justified in any

way. Accordingly point no.- (iii) is decided in favour of the workman.

16.

From perusal of the entire facts and material available on record, this tribunal finds that the management of

LIC wrongly followed the rules of corporation and regulation of LIC of India (Staff ) Regulation Act, 1960. As per

section-2 of this regulation Act, these rules are applicable to whole time ( salaried employee ) but here LIC

management misinterpreted the rules as the workman Bhakta Mahendra was not whole time gardener of the LIC

rather this is admitted facts workman Bhakta Mahendra was doing his job of LIC as part time gardener. So the case of

this workman is not covered under the LIC of India (Staff) Regulation,1960. This tribunal further finds that the

2522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management of LIC keeping the workman in dark, when he came to office to join his duty on 21.10.2013, issued a

charge sheet cum show cause notice dt-20.11.2013 by Sr. Divisional Manager cum Disciplinary Authority in haste

without applying the principle of natural justice and without the applicability of LIC of India Regulation, 1960 in the

case of workman. Accordingly this tribunal finds and hold that order of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate

Authority and the order of Chairman are not proper and justified. As all the authorities of LIC did not consider the real

facts of the case and passed a whimsical biased order on the basis of improper enquiry report ( Ext.-M/3-1) and

without proper interpretation of section-2 of LIC of India ( Regulation ) staff Regulation,1960. This tribunal further

finds that workman has been removed from the service vide order dated- 27.12.2013 without giving any notice pay,

without compensation i.e clear cut a violation of section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act. As the section-25 (F)of

the Industrial Dispute Act dea;s with the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman:- No workman

employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer

shall be retrenched by that employer until,-

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b)

the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days average pay [ for every completed year of continuous service ] or any part thereof in excess of six month; and

(c)

notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [ for such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the official gazette].

17. This tribunal finds that workman has served the LIC as part time gardener about 22 years without any adverse

remarks but previous service record has been sidelined by the management of LIC and thus violated the section 25 (F)

of the I.D.Act and thus the role of the management of LIC of India comes under the purview of unfair labour practice

i.e violation of Section 25(T) of the I.D.Act by passing a major punishment against the workman Bhakta Mahendra

removal from the service i.e without applying the rules of LIC of India staff regulation 1960 in right perspective and

without applying the principle of natural justice and thus the action of the management is LIC of India, Patna

terminating the service of workman Bhakta Mahendra ex-part time gardener from 27.12.2013 without following the

provision of section 25(F) of the I.D.Act ( point no.-iii) is not legal and justified ).

18. So keeping the view of the discussions as made above and the findings arrived at on other points this is a

considered opinion of this tribunal, the service of the Bhakta Mahendra should be regularized from 21.10.2013 after

reinstatement of his service with back salary and with all consequential benefits, accordingly management of LIC of

India, Patna is directed to reinstate the workman Bhakta Mahendra to his service from the date 21.10.2013 with back

salary and other consequential benefits. If the workman attained the age of superannuation, the management of LIC of

India shall pay his full back salary from 21.10.2013 and retiral benefits within the period of two months from date of

publication of this award.

This is my award accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

Sd/- 24.05.2023

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1209.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

िुगाथपुर स्ट्टील प्लांट के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और हिंिुस्ट्तान स्ट्टील वकथसथ' यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-08/2016) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -26011/08/2016- आईआर(एम)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Durgapur Steel Plant and Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 11.07.2023.

[No.L-26011/08/2016-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2523

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. 08 OF 2016

PARTIES: Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union

Vs.

Management of Durgapur Steel Plant

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union.

For the Management:

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Iron and Steel.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

07.06.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-26011/8/2016-IR(M) dated 26.04.2016 and Corrigendum dated 27.12.2016 has been pleased to refer the

following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Durgapur Steel Plant and their employees for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management in deploying Industrial Employees (governed by Certified Standing

Orders) in Computer & Information Technology Department (non-works area) where total jobs are done by Non-

Industrial Employees (governed by SAIL CDA Rules, 1977) with discrimination in incentive payment provision of

leave, holiday & shift working is justified? If not, what relief such Industrial Employees posted to Computer &

Information Technology Department of Durgapur Steel Plant are entitled to. ”

On receiving Order No. L-26011/8/2016-IR(M) dated 26.04.2016 and Corrigendum dated 27.12.2016 from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 08 of 2016

was registered on 13.05.2016 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.

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, learned Advocate for the Management of Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) is present. The

case is fixed up for appearance and evidence of parties. On repeated call at 12:00 PM none appeared on behalf of the

workman. In compliance with order dated 16.12.2022 Notice were issued to the Chief Executive Officer, Durgapur

Steel Plant as well as the Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC) under registered post directing

them to appear in person or through their authorized representatives. On receiving the notice, the Management of

Durgapur Steel Plant appeared through Mr. Banerjee, their advocate but no one turned up for the union for adducing

evidence.

After registration of this case on 13.05.2016, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC) filed a written

statement on 20.06.2016 and SAIL/DSP filed their written statement on 14.06.2017. A rejoinder was filed by the

union on 04.07.2017. However, the union representative has not turned up for adducing evidence in support of their

case nor did they seek for any accommodation. Due to such default on the part of Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union, at

whose instance this Industrial Dispute has been raised, I am constrained to dismiss the reference case.

Hence,

2524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1210.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

जविाखापट्नम स्ट्टील प्लांट, ऊक्कुनागरम, जविाखापट्नम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री के. सत्य राव,

पेिगन्त्यािा (एम), जविाखापट्नम के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-97/2013) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -29012/36/2013- आईआर(एम)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 97/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam and Shri K. Satya Rao,

Pedagantyada(M), Visakhapatnam which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 11.07.2023.

[No. L-29012/36/2013-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT,

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of June, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 97/2013

Between:

Sri K. Satya Rao,

Ex-Technician, SP

D.No.154-1-100, Jalaripallipalem(V)

Gangavarm(P.O.), Pedagantyada (M),

Visakhapatnam – 530 044.

…...Petitioner

AND

The Director(Personnel)

Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.,

Ukkunagaram,

Visakhapatnam – 530 003.

….Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2525

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. M. Sivananda Kumar & T. Balaswami, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. V. Ravinder Rao & Satoor Narayana Goud, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/36/2013-IR(M) dated 1.10.2013

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Sh. K. Satya Rao (Employee No.117113), Ex-Technician for reinstatement of his

services by the Management of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, RINL, is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 97/2013 and issued

notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their respective

counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

It is submitted that in the year 2002, 1^st charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner for un-authorized of absence of 84

days and the Petitioner was punished with a censure on 5.11.2002. It is submitted that again the Petitioner was

absent for 96 days and he was punished with a reduction in basic pay by one stage for a period of one year with

cumulative effect on 18.10.2003. Then, Petitioner was given a punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for

a period of one year with cumulative effect on 17.6.2004 for unauthorized absence of 88 days. It is submitted that

thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner for unauthorized absence of 102 days and a punishment of

reduction in basic pay by 4 stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect on 24.6.2005 was given to the

Petitioner. It is submitted that another charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner for unauthorized absence of 119 days

and he was punished with reduction to lower grade in Time Scale from S4 to S3 on 29.8.2006. Finally, another

charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner for unauthorized absence of 165 days and as a measure of punishment, he

was removed from service on 10.9.2009 vide Order No. WK/ES & F/l17113/D 1050 of the 2^nd respondent. It is

submitted that during the interregnum period of charge sheet and removal of service, Petitioner was also issued a

charge sheet on the allegation of theft of Company property and no enquiry was conducted as he was already

removed from service. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He was appointed as a

Trainee in the respondent Steel Plant on l6.3.1992. His services were regularized on 16.9.1994. In the cadre of

Technician, he discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors, undeterred for 10 years. The Petitioner

was appointed in the quota of displaced persons. It is submitted that the Petitioner is the only son and the burden of

looking after his parents, wife and 7 children is solely depends on him alone. The Petitioner lost his land and house

under the land acquisition for the purpose of Steel Plant. It is submitted that during the year 2002, the mother of

Petitioner, who is aged about 75 years, slipped down while descending the steps. Due to old aged, she sustained

serious injuries and being the only son, the task of treating his mother laid on the Petitioner's shoulder. The same was

informed to the authorities and inspite of his request, the authorities, without sanctioning leave, erroneously marked

absent and issued a charge sheet. There was no proper inquiry and without appreciating the facts of the case, the

punishment of It is submitted that during the year 2003, while Petitioner's mother was undergoing treatment,

Petitioner was met with an accident when he was travelling in an auto. This incident was also informed to the

authorities and prayed for granting of leave. The authorities, without considering the same, marked the Petitioner as

absent and issued another charge sheet and passed an order of punishment without application of the facts of the case.

Likewise, series of charge sheets were issued without considering the explanation of the Petitioner and without

conducting inquiry under proper lines, Petitioner was subjected to punishment. The Petitioner is not worldly wise and

he has not been given proper opportunities to defend his case during the inquiries conducted against him and the

family background of the Petitioner and his responsibilities were not taken into consideration while passing the order

of removal. It is submitted that the Petitioner was alleged to have been removed from service vide Order Ref.

WK/ES&Fy/1 17113/D-1050, dated 10.09.2009 of the 2^nd respondent on the ground of unauthorized absence for a

period of 165 days. This case is a fit case to take lenient view in pursuance of the facts and circumstances and

deserves to be treated as a special case for the following among other grounds which are to be urged at the time of

arguments/hearing. The punishing authority has erred in assessing the case while passing the order of removal and

further referred to a case where no inquiry has been conducted. The punishing authority is at liberty to file a criminal

case, though the employee has been removed, in the event of theft had taken place, but the same was not done and it

shows that the allegations in the charge sheets are also false and willfully subjected the Petitioner to harassment.

While passing the order of removal, which is a major punishment, the Petitioner was not called for any enquiry and

2526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the punishment of removal was passed by the authority behind his back. Since the order of removal is a serious

punishment, he must be given opportunity to defend his case without reference to the past records and the authority

shall confine only to the present issues because the Petitioner was punished either wrongly or rightly for the previous

mis- conduct. In the instant case, the punishing authority referred to the previous cases to justify his action of passing

the order of removal, which is illegal and arbitrary. The punishing authority, before passing the major punishment of

removal from service, shall consider various aspects, particularly the principles of natural justice were complied with

or not. In the instant case, Petitioner was removed from service on the findings of the Inquiry officer which are one

sided and biased. The serious error is that the charge sheeted Petitioner was not called for enquiry and his version was

completely denied by not giving opportunity and such inquiry itself is vitiated. Therefore, the order of removal assed

on the basis of the one sided inquiry also shall be set aside, as it has no force. It is, therefore, prayed to set aside the

Order No. WK/ES & F/117113/D-1050, dated 10.9.2009 issued by the 2^nd respondent and consequently pass an order

for reinstatement of the Claimant forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in

the interest of justice.

3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

It is submitted that the undisputed conduct of the Petitioner over the years while in service reflects his total disregard

towards discharge of duties. It is submitted that the unauthorized absence of workman, every year ever since 2002

has resulted in series of punishment orders ultimately culminating in removal from service. A perusal of the orders

pursuant to disciplinary inquiry, year after year clearly shows that the management having taken liberal attitude

towards the petitioner had to increase the effect of punishment during subsequent years only to ensure that the

petitioner would amend his ways and inculcate discipline in service. Having been in service since 1994 the

petitioner has developed the habit of being unauthorizedly absent since the year 2002 and had faced disciplinary

inquiries, which ultimately resulted in removal from service. Besides disciplinary inquiry and the punishment orders

the petitioner was also served warning letters on a number of occasions and appropriate entries were made in the

annual confidential reports. All these steps were taken only as preventive and corrective actions by the management

but ultimately the extreme step of removal from service was inevitable. It is submitted that in all the inquiries

conducted adequate and due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing the appropriate order of

punishment. The respondent organization being manufacturing unit involved in the production of steel and the

petitioner being a technician entrusted with the task of discharging his functions in the line of production was

expected to be regular in his duties, any unauthorized absence would have an adverse effect of dislocating the

process of supervision in the production chain. Hence, unauthorized absence of such an employee considering the

nature of functions to be discharged has to be viewed seriously. However, taking a lenient view punishment orders of

smaller magnitude were passed in the earlier stages of indiscipline by the petitioner. There is no justification nor any

legally tenable ground to question the order of removal in the face of his misconduct over the years. Though the

petitioner has not chosen to plead in detail about the nature of inquiry conducted on previous disciplinary inquiries

and the punishment orders passed therein, it may be stated that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity and

only on being fully satisfied that he had no valid or just explanation to offer for unauthorized absence the appropriate

order of punishment was passed. It is submitted that against the charge of committing theft of company property a

charge sheet dated 29.06.2007 was issued and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit an explanation. The

petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the charge. An inquiry committee was duly constituted and after

following the due process and inquiry report dated 29.08.2007 was submitted. A copy of the inquiry report was made

available to the petitioner before passing the disciplinary order. The disciplinary order dated 10.09.2009 is in fact a

common one both for the charge of unauthorized absence for a period of 165 days as shown in the charge sheet dated

7/9.04.2007 and also the charge of committing theft of company property. The disciplinary authority has considered

the inquiry reports in the case of both the charges and having considered the gravity of misconduct passed an order of

removal from service. In the punishment order before arriving at the nature and extent of punishment be imposed, the

disciplinary authority thought it appropriate to examine the past conduct of the petitioner to see whether there are any

mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view against the petitioner. In that context the disciplinary authority had

referred to previous misconduct and the disciplinary orders passed against the petitioner. These factors/aspects have

however not weighed with the disciplinary authority in passing the order of removal from service. It is submitted that

the petitioner has narrated about his alleged problems by claiming to be a physically handicapped person, displaced

person and also the alleged ailment of his mother. None of these facts can constitute a basis to condone or ignore the

continuous unauthorized absence over the years. It is not the case of the petitioner that the afore stated explanation

offered was placed on record or substantiated by appropriate evidence during the course of any of the disciplinary

inquiries. Hence, the above-stated pleas cannot be countenanced. These averments are made only with a view to

gain. It is false to allege that series of charges were issued without considering the explanation of the petitioner and

punishment orders are passed without conducting proper inquiry. The petitioner was offered due opportunity during

the course of inquiry and on certain occasions he failed to submit any explanation. Being an educated person it is not

open for the petitioner to state that he is not worldly wise. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the nature of

the duties he is expected to perform in the manufacturing process it cannot be said that unauthorized absence and also

the charge of theft which are established after due inquiry, warrant any lenient view. Hence the plea is untenable and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2527

misconceived. It is not correct to contend that the disciplinary authority while passing the order of removal has

referred to a case where no inquiry has been conducted. Merely because a criminal case is not booked against the

petitioner does not mean that the allegation of theft cannot be inquired into or that the charge is not established during

the course of disciplinary inquiry. It is false to allege that the charge of theft was made willfully to harass the

petitioner. The petitioner was given a copy of the inquiry report and was asked to submit his explanation before the

disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. The petitioner has not chosen to avail the opportunity. The

procedures as contemplated in the regulations formulated by the company are strictly adhered to before passing the

order of punishment. The punishment order makes it clear that the disciplinary authority has referred to the past

records/conduct of the petitioner only to verify whether there are any mitigating circumstances in order to take a

lenient view against the petitioner. The past conduct of the petitioner has not weighed with the disciplinary authority

in imposing the order of punishment. The petitioner has not chosen to substantiate the allegation relating to violation

of principles of natural justice at any stage of the disciplinary inquiry and also the basis to contend that his version was

completely denied before passing the punishment order. The standard orders of the company do not contemplate any

separate inquiry in the case imposing major punishment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the procedures

contemplated in the service regulations applicable to the petitioner are not strictly adhere to. For all the reasons stated

above it is prayed that the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference with the order passed by the

disciplinary authority against the serious misconduct of the petitioner which is duly established by conducting an

appropriate inquiry. Hence the petition be dismissed with costs.

Heard arguments of both parties under Sec.11A of the Act. Perused the record.

On the basis of pleadigs of both the parties, the following points emerge for determination:

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is legal and valid?

II.

Whether the action of the Management in dismissing the Petitioner workman from service vide order

WK/ES&Fdy/117113/D-1050, dated 10.9.2009 is liable to be set aside as per plea taken by the Petitioner in

the claim?

III.

Whether Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in the service as he claimed in the petition?

IV.

To what relief the workman is entitled?

Point No.I: The validity of domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 21.4.2021

hence, it got finality.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Points No.II & III: It is admitted by the workman that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty during the

relevant period as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 7/9.4.2007, issued against him. Moreover, in the enquiry

proceeding held on 31.5.2007 when the Enquiry Officer asked the charge sheeted employee whether he accepts the

charges on his own, then, the charge sheeted employee confirmed that he is accepting the charges on his own and

without pressure of anybody. Further the Presiding Officer has produced attendance details of charge sheeted

employee in the enquiry proceeding. The Petitioner has submitted that the punishing authority has not considered

various aspects particularly principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order. Since the validity of

domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 21.4.2017 by the Tribunal, and issue of following

principles of natural justice has already been dealt in the said order. Therefore, this plea of the workman is not

acceptable.

Regarding his unauthorized absence from duty in the relevant period as alleged in charge sheet the workman

has taken the plea in his claim statement that during the year 2002 his mother aged 75 years, slipped down while

descending the steps and due to old age she sustained serious injuries. The workman being only son had the

responsibility for treating his mother. This was informed to the authorities but inspite of his request the authorities

without sanctioning leave erroneously marked absence and issued charge sheet. Further, it is submitted that there

was no proper enquiry and without appreciating the facts of the case, the punishment off ‘Censure’ was passed

against him. Further he has taken the plea that during the year 2003 the Petitioner’s mother was undergoing treatment

and the Petitioner met with an accident while he was travelling in an auto, this incident was also informed to the

authority and prayed for granting him leave, but the authority without considering the same marked the Petitioner

absent and issued another charge sheet and passed order of punishment without application of the facts of his case.

10.

On the other hand, the Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of

hearing during the enquiry. But he had no valid or just explanation to offer for unauthorized absence from duty.

11.

It is to be noted that in the present claim statement, Petitioner has challenged the impugned order No.

WK/ES&Fdy/117113/D-1050, dated 10.9.2009 passed by Respondent whereby he was dismissed from service.

Therefore, the order challenged in the present matter was passed by Disciplinary Authority on the basis of charge

sheet No.WK/ES&FDY/117113/ CS.6/488 dated 7/9.4.2007 for his misconduct of habitual absence from duty, in

2528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

violation of CL No. 27.46 of CSO of the company, violation of CL.No.22.2 read with CL.No.27.65 of CSO of the

Company, and also violation of CL.No.22.4 read with 27.65 of CSO of the company. The aforesaid plea of

mother’s illness does not pertain to the period for which impugned order of punishment/ dismissal order has been

passed. The charge sheet dated 7/9.4.2007 itself reveals that he was charge sheeted for the unauthorized absence

from duty for the period in the year 2007, 2008 and 2009 and he was held guilty for unauthorized absence.

Therefore, Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass punishment order dated 10.9.2009 by dismissing the Petitioner

from the service from the unauthorized absence of the Petitioner from duty. Therefore, the afore said plea taken by

the workman is of no help to the Petitioner’s claim ag the order under challenge.

12.

Further, in para 15 of the claim statement Petitioner has admitted that he was removed from service vide

order dated 10.9.2009 on the ground of unauthorized absence for a period of 165 days and his case is a fit case to

take lenient view in pursuance of the facts and circumstances of the matter on the ground that the punishing authority

has erred. From the perusal of the removal order it depicts that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the reasoned

order while taking into account the previous Annual Confidential Records of the Petitioner for the years, viz., 2002,

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and he had been punished on several occasions for the unauthorized absence from duty as

mentioned in the punishment order at para No.3.0, points No.1,2,3,4,5 and 6. But the Petitioner failed to furnish

plausible and satisfactory explanation for his unauthorized absence from duty in the relevant period as mentioned in

the charge sheet dated 7/9.4.2007. Moreover, he has accepted the allegation stated in the charge sheet during enquiry.

Therefore, he was rightly found guilty of misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty in contravention of the CSO

27.46 and 27.65. Further, it would be pertinent to have a reference of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of In the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.1841 decided on 20.9.2010

wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“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.”

13.

In view of the above, from the perusal of the record and submission made by the parties concerned, it is

undisputed that the charges levelled against the workman held proved in the domestic enquiry. Since habitual

unauthorized absenteeism from duty of the workman and from place of work in contravention of the company’s

Standing Orders. Therefore, it can not possibly argued that charges against the Petitioner were simple in nature. So

far as charges are concerned, he was found absent for total number of 165 days, during the period of years 2007,

2008 and 2009 and he was also found guilty of committing theft in the company premises of the company’s

property in contravention to CSO No.27.65 and he was found guilty. Therefore, in view of the charges held

proved against the Petitioner. In such circumstances no employer would ever allow or tolerate such behavior of his

employees while on duty. The employer had therefore, every right to initiate domestic enquiry against such employee

for such reprehensive conduct and behavior. Moreover on earlier occasions also during 2002 to 2005, he was held

guilty of unauthorized absence from duty, and for that he was awarded minor punishments of “Censure”, Reduction

of basic pay by two stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect, Reduction of basic pay by four stages for a

period of one year with cumulative effect and Reduction to lower grade respectively. However, he was extended

number of opportunities by the company to reform and improve his conduct. But he did not avail those opportunities

to reform his conduct and behavior. Therefore, finally for the charges of unauthorized absence in the years 2007,

2008 and 2009 he was held guilty in the enquiry and after considering all facts and circumstances, the Disciplinary

Authority was under compelling situation passed the order of removal from service to the workman.

14.

In this context, the Respondent counsel has contended that against the charge of committing theft of company

property a charge sheet dated 29.06.2007 was issued and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit an

explanation, but the petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the charge. An inquiry committee was duly

constituted and after following the due process and inquiry report dated 29.08.2007 was submitted. A copy of the

inquiry report was made available to the petitioner before passing the disciplinary order. The disciplinary authority

vide order dated 10.09.2009 is in fact a common one for both for the charge of unauthorized absence for a period of

165 days as shown in the charge sheet dated 7/9.04.2007 and also for the charge of committing theft of company

property. Further, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority has considered the inquiry reports in the case of both

the charges and having considered the gravity of misconduct passed an order of removal from service. In the

punishment order before arriving at the nature and extent of punishment be imposed, the disciplinary authority thought

it appropriate to examine the past conduct of the petitioner to see whether there are any mitigating circumstances to

take a lenient view against the petitioner. In that context the disciplinary authority had referred to previous

misconduct and the disciplinary orders passed against the petitioner. These factors/aspects have however not weighed

with the disciplinary authority in passing the order of removal from service. It is contended that merely because a

criminal case is not booked against the petitioner does not mean that the allegation of theft cannot be inquired into or

that the charge is not established during the course of disciplinary inquiry. It is false to allege that the charge of theft

was made willfully to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was given a copy of the inquiry report and was asked to

submit his explanation before the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. The petitioner has not chosen

to avail the opportunity. It is further submitted that the procedures as contemplated in the regulations formulated by

the company are strictly adhered to before passing the order of punishment. The punishment order makes it clear

that the disciplinary authority has referred to the past records/conduct of the petitioner only to verify whether there are

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2529

any mitigating circumstances in order to take a lenient view against the petitioner. The past conduct of the petitioner

has not weighed with the disciplinary authority in imposing the order of punishment. The petitioner has not chosen to

substantiate the allegation relating to violation of principles of natural justice at any stage of the disciplinary inquiry

and also the basis to contend that his version was completely denied before passing the punishment order. It is

further contended that the standard orders of the company do not contemplate any separate inquiry in the case

imposing major punishment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the procedures contemplated in the service

regulations applicable to the petitioner are not strictly adhere to. Hence the petition be dismissed.

15.

In view of the submissions made by the Respondent, the Petitioner was found guilty under clause 27.65 of

Standing Orders wherein it is mentioned that, “Any act which constitutes violation of any of these Standing

Orders.” Therefore, Petitioner was rightly found guilty by the Enquiry Officer of the charge levelled against him

and by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the punishment order of removal from the service against the

workman has considered all the aspects and circumstances of the case of workman. In these circumstances, the

Respondent Management was left with no option except to pass the punishment order of removal from service of the

Petitioner. More over, the Petitioner was not able to make out any ground for taking a lenient view in granting lesser

punishment of removal to him.

16.

The Respondent Management has made a reference of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India

Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava decided on 21^st February, 2008 in Civil Appeal 5213 of

2006 wherien Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“12. As noted above, sick leave can be granted only on the production of a medical certificate from a registered

medical practitioner clearly stating as far as possible the diagnosis and probable duration of treatment. There was

no such indication in the certificates purported to have been furnished by the Respondent. It is to be noted that the

Respondent even did not join after receipt of the letter dated 3.8.1994. The charges against the Respondent, inter

alia, were as follows:

(i) willful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors,

(ii) absence without leave, without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation,

(iii) absence from his appointed place of work without permission or sufficient cause.’

13. In Viveka Nand Sethi v. J & K Bank Ltd., this Court, inter alia, observed as follows:

"14. What fell for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal was the interpretation and/or applicability of

the said settlement. The Industrial Tribunal committed an error of record insofar as it proceeded on the basis that the

said settlement had not been proved. The settlement being an admitted document should have been considered in its

proper perspective by the Industrial Tribunal. Clause (2) of the said settlement is a complete code by itself. It lays

down a complete machinery as to how and in what manner the employer can arrive at a satisfaction that the workman

has no intention to join his duties. A bare perusal of the said settlement clearly shows that it is for the employee

concerned to submit a proper application for leave. It is not in dispute that after the period of leave came to an end in

June 1983, the workman did not report back for duties. He also did not submit any application for grant of further

leave on medical ground or otherwise. It is in that situation the memorandum dated 2-11-1983 was issued and he was

asked to join his duties. I is furthermore not in dispute that despite receipt of the said memorandum, the workman did

not join duties pursuant whereto he was served with a notice to show cause dated 31-12-1983. He was required to

resume his duties by 15-1-1984. The Bank received a telegram on 17-1-1984 and only about a month thereafter he

filed an application for grant of leave on medical ground. It is not the case of the workman that any leave on medical

ground or otherwise was due to him. Opportunities after opportunities indisputably had been granted to the workman

to explain his position but he chose not to do so except filing applications for grant of medical leave and that too

without annexing proper medical certificates.

Further, Hon’ble High Court off Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of D. Nageswara Rao Vs.

Guntur District Milk Producers Co-operative Union Limited, Vadlamudi , decided in 2001(5) ALT 347 (D.B.), the

Hon’ble High Court have held:-

“12. This takes us to the contention regarding the disproportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The

misconduct committed by the petitioner cannot be taken lightly. It is pertinent to notice that despite the fact that the

management indulged in granting leave liberally to the petitioner for months together and despite several reminders

to the petitioner to return to duty in the interests of administration, the petitioner refused to obey the directions of the

employer with impunity, and went on availing unauthorised leave. As pointed out supra, though the petitioner took the

plea that he was ill, being inflicted by influenza, enteric fever and typhoid, he did not produce any medical certificate

to support that he was actually ill. Unauthorised absence, that too for a long period, subjecting the public interest to

peril, cannot be treated as a minor lapse on the part of the delinquent employee. Be that as it may, it is well settled

that the High Court, in exercising power of judicial review under Article 226, cannot sit as an appellate authority and

2530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

interfere with the disciplinary action taken by the authorities lightly and reduce or modify the quantum of punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority, unless, in a given case, the penalty so imposed shocks the conscience of the

Court. This is not one such case. Therefore, we do not find any weighty or substantive ground to interfere with the

quantum of punishment also.”

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law discussed as above, the order of dismissal passed against the

Petitioner by Respondent authority can not be faulted with nor it can be said to be in any way disproportionate to the

gravity of charges. The punishment of dismissal of the workman was proportionate to the charges, hence, deserves to

be upheld. Therefore, in view of the discussion in fore gone paragraphs and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the services of

the Petitioner was legal and justified and hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief of reinstatement into

service.

Thus, Points No.II & III is answered accordingly.

ORDER

In the result, the reference is answered as under:-

The demand of Sh. K. Satya Rao (Employee No.117113), Ex-Technician for reinstatement of his services by the

Management of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, RINL, is neither legal nor justified. As such, the order of termination No.

WK/ES & F/l17113/D 1050 dated 10.9.2009 passed by Respondent is held legal and valid. Hence, Petitioner is not

entitled to any relief, as such the claim 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

23^rd day of June, 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, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1211.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

जिन्िुस्ट्तान ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, लखनऊ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अजमत पांडेय पुत्र श्री बलराम

पांडेय, बाराबंकी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-07/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2023- आईआर(एम)-52]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2020 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2531

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Hindustan Oil Corporation Limited, Lucknow and Shri Amit Pandey S/o Shri Balram Pandey, Barabanki

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.07.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-52]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 07/2020

Ref. No. K-10/1-4/2019-IR, Dt.21.01.2020

Amit Pandey V/s Hindustan Oil Corporation Ltd.

BETWEEN

Sri Amit Pandey S/o Sri Balram Pandey 2/129, Avas Vikas Colony, Barabanki-225001

AND

Chief General Manager Hindustan Oil Corporation Ltd. TV 13, V.V. Vibhuti Khand. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

AWARD

By Letter No. K-10/1-4/2019-IR dated 21.01.2020 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 Section10

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:-

“Whether the termination of the service of Sri Shyam Kumar S/o Sri Krisha Avtar, who was engaged in Roja

Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, for the period 08.08.2008 to

23.04.2010 is proper and justified”.

If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?”

Accordingly on 22.10.2020 an industrial dispute No. 43/2020, registered before this Tribunal.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that in spite of several opportunities granted to the

claiamnt/workman, he has not filed statement of claim.

Lastly on 27.03.2023 an order was passed quoted herein below.

“Matter taken up in revise list.

None for claimant.

Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla for respondent.

List on 18.05.2023 for ex-parte

hearing at Campt, Nainital”.

Sri Dhirendra Singh learned counsel for the F.C.I. argued that in spite of several opportunities, no claim has been filed

by claimant till date as such, keeping in view of the order dated 17.01.2023 the matter be dismissed.

Finding & 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 03.09.2020.

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’’.

2532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 208 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti V. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. V.K. Raj

Industries V. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited Vs. 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 partly 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 Vs. 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.

Lucknow

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

05.06.2023

नई दिल्ली, 11 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1212.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

राष्ट्रीय इस्ट्पात जनगम जलजमटेड, ऊक्कुनागरम, जविाखापट्नम के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री एम. रामचंर रािू,

पादकरीथककीआ पोस्ट्ट, जविाखापट्नम के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-61/2010) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2023- आईआर(एम)-54]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2023

S.O. 1212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 61/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam and Shri M. Ramachandra Raju,

Pakirithakkia Post, Visakhapatnam which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 11.07.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-54]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6^th day of July, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 61/2010

Between:

Sri M. Ramachandra Raju,

S/o Late M. Appala Raju,

Laxmipuram, Vadlapudi HR Colony,

Pakirithakkia Post,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2533

Visakhapatnam – 530 001.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chairman cum Managing Director,

The Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited,

Ukku Nagaram,

Visakhapatnam – 530 001.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri William Burra, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s. K. Sarvabhouma Rao & Sharath Chandupatla, Advocates

AWARD

Sri M. Ramachandra Raju, who worked as Junior Technician (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 Rastriya Ispat Nigam

Limited seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 24.12.1992 issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set

aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the

consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other

reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner is a land looser. The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant had acquired his house and site. He was given a

Rehabilitation Card No. 256, for the purpose of providing employment/alternative house site etc., paying meager

compensation. The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant had undertaken the responsibility of accommodating the land loosers

by providing employment on the basis of Rehabilitation Cards. The Petitioner was accordingly appointed as Assistant

Technician Trainee under the rehabilitation quota on 05-02-1988. The petitioner completed his in service training

satisfactorily and was appointed as Junior Technician on regular basis and was on probation for a period of one year

w.e.f. 03-11-1989 and posted in the Traffic Department by the Respondent. The Petitioner had completed the

probation period of one year satisfactorily and was discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction. While so, the

petitioner suffered from serious illness due to which he was compelled to proceed on leave, even without pay. The

petitioner further submits that due to his illness and loss of pay put the petitioner to physical, mental and financial

problems resulting in prolonged leave etc,. In support of sickness the petitioner submitted Medical Certificate on 09-

09-1992 and thereby he was taken on duty on 05-10-1992 only to terminate his services w.e.f. 24.12.1992. Prior to

the termination, the petitioner was charge sheeted, domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer failed to give

any opportunity inspite of repeated oral and written requests of the Petitioner. No opportunity was given to explain

the reasons for his unauthorized absence. It is submitted that based on the exparte enquiry report Petitioner’s services

were terminated. All the representations, petitions and Appeals have been rejected, upholding termination order

dated 24.12.1992. The petitioner has therefore filed Writ Petition No. 8489 of 1995 before the Hon'ble High Court of

A.P. at Hyderabad. While disposing the W.P. No. 8489 of 1995 the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad had directed the

Respondent Management to consider the case of the Petitioner. Instead of considering his case sympathetically, the

Respondent Management rejected the Petitioner’s case vide letter dated 21.1.1998. It is submitted that the petitioner

was not given reasonable opportunity to explain his case before the enquiry officer. Hence the enquiry conducted by

the Respondent is illegal, without jurisdiction, against the provisions of law and also against the principles of natural

justice. The punishment of termination from service is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner

in terms of Sec. 11A of the I.D.Act, 1947. The Respondent has violated several provisions of the certified Standing

Orders such as clause 30, 28 and 2l etc.. Therefore, it is prayed to declare the termination order dated 24-12-1992

arbitrary, illegal, against the provisions of law and also principles of natural against the justice and direct the

Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service attendant benefits.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

Being a land looser the petitioner had the benefit of rehabilitation scheme introduced by the State Government besides

the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Authorities. Being a displaced person petitioner was issued a

Rehabilitation Card by the State Government to enable him to participate in the selection process for any vacancy in

the non-executive cadre notified by the respondent organization. Accordingly, the petitioner being selected as trainee

joined the respondent organization on 05.02.88. On completion of training he was appointed as Junior Technician

operation w.e.f., 03.11.89. While in service the petitioner was in the habit of being unauthorizedly absent without

prior application or sanction of leave. He used to request for sanction of leave after joining on the false pretext of

health problems. Such conduct warranted adverse entries in his confidential character reports (CCRs) ever since the

2534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

first year of his joining the service. All the entries in CCRs during the years 90-91, 91-92 are made after being duly

informed of the same. He was also duly warned about his adverse conduct and advised not to repeat the same by

communications dated 17.12.90, 1^st January, 1991, 9^th March, 1991 and April, 1991. Since the petitioner continued

to adopt the misconduct of being unauthorizedly absent inspite of warnings and adverse entries in CCRs, a charge

sheet dated 13.06.91 was issued on the ground of habitual and willful absence from duty for a period from 25.02.91 to

13.06.91. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the charge sheet on 24.06.91. Since the explanation was not

satisfactory, after affording reasonable opportunity as per the service regulations the disciplinary authority imposed a

minor punishment of censure by order dated 26.7.91. Subsequently a 2^nd charge sheet dated 8/9.10.91 had to be issued

for willful and habitual absence, since the petitioner has not changed his conduct inspite of warnings and earlier

disciplinary proceedings. The charge memo was issued with reference to Standing Orders CI 22.2 r/w Cl 27.65 for

being unauthorisedly absent from 05.08.91 to 09.10.91. Since the explanation dated 23.10.91 submitted by the

petitioner was not satisfactory, an Enquiry was conducted by affording reasonable opportunity, and thereafter

punishment of censure awarded to him, by order dated 26.07.91. Inspite of service of notice the petitioner did not

participate in the enquiry proceedings, thereby compelling conduct of proceedings ex-parte. The enquiry officer

submitted a report on 16.07.92. In the meanwhile on account of his unauthorized absence during the subsequent

period i.e from 10.10.91 to 10.11.9l and from 09.1.92 to 13.05.92 another charge sheet dated 13.05.92 was issued

invoking the same provisions of standing orders. In response the petitioner submitted an explanation on 26.05.92

which was not satisfactory. Accordingly an enquiry committee was constituted. During the course of this enquiry

petitioner appeared before enquiry officer on 08.09.92 and voluntarily accepted the charges. Thereafter the petitioner

reported to duty on 09.09.92. On account of his repeated excuses of ill health as an alleged cause for being

unauthorisedly absent. He was referred to Chief Medical Officer Visakha Steel And General Hospital on 03.10.92 for

a medical opinion, which established that the alleged health problems are only false excuses. After receipt of medical

report petitioner attended to duty for one month from 05.10.92, and once again abstained from 04.11.92. In terms of

the two enquires referred to above final orders of removal of the petitioner from service were passed on 24.12.92. The

removal order was passed after conducting due enquiry and affording adequate opportunity in both the enquires.

After the appeal and review petitions were rejected by the competent authorities on consideration of relevant material,

the petitioner approached Hon'ble Court of AP by filing WP. No. 8489/95. The Hon'ble High Court disposed the said

writ petition by order dated 16.10.97. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court petitioner submitted

representations seeking re-appointment. The competent authority in the respondent orginsation having carefully re-

considered the matter in the context of previous conduct of the petitioner and the interest of orginsation which is a

continuous process industry which cannot afford any break or disruption in the process for want of manpower thought

it not desirable to re-employ the petitioner and petitioner was informed of the same. Thereupon the petitioner once

again approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP. No. 25176/02. The Hon'ble High Court by order dated

20.12.02 was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. The petitioner has suppressed most of the above referred facts

and the repeated litigious processes indulged in during the past 18 years after the services are terminated in the year

1992. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed in limini.

The perusal of the record reveals that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents in this case is held

as not valid vide order dated 8.3.2016. The Respondent is directed produce evidence to prove his case.

Heard the Petitioner. Both parties submitted their written arguments u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

On the basis of the rival pleadings of both parties and written submissions, the following points emerge

for determination:-

I. Whether the termination of the petitioner from service by the Respondent vide order dated 24.12.1992

is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and liable to be set aside?

II. Whether the claim of the petitioner is barred by principle of Res- judicata?

III. To what relief is the petitioner entitled?

FINDINGS:-

Points No.I & II: Petitioner has claimed that he has worked as Technician for more than 4 years to the

entire satisfaction of his superiors in the Respondent office. The Petitioner suffered serious illness in the year 1992

and due to which he was on leave, even without pay. On submission of medical certificate he was taken on duty on

5.10.1992 only to terminate his services w.e.f. 24.12.1992. It is also submitted that before issuing the termination

order, the Petitioner was issued with a charge sheet and domestic enquiry was conducted ex-parte without giving any

opportunity to explain the reasons for his absence. Based on ex-parte enquiry report, Petitioner’s services were

terminated on 24.12.1992. It is also submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 8.3.2016 has held the domestic

enquiry as not valid and Respondents were accorded opportunity to produce the evidence to prove their case. But

the Respondent failed to produce any evidence in support of their contention and case was posted for arguments. It is

therefore prayed by the Petitioner that, since the domestic enquiry was held not valid and Respondent failed to

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2535

produce any evidence to prove their case, Petitioner be reinstated into service with full back wages, continuity of

service as prayed in his claim statement.

On the other hand, Respondent counsel has submitted that it is not the case of the Petitioner at any stage that

he has suffered any prejudice on account of improper conduct of enquiry or any lack of opportunity. It is not case of

the Petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings suffer from any statutory violation or contrary to the provisions of

Certified Standing Orders and hence it is submitted that enquiry conducted on both the occasions was legally valid.

This constituted the basis of passing the removal order and does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. It is

also submitted that in case of similar nature an employee being unauthorizedly absent on several occasions and for

long duration were considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

wherein it is held that a punishment of removal for unauthorized absence is not disproportionate and also does not

shock the conscience of the court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of this case the Respondent is justified in

removing the Petitioner from service. The counsel for Respondent in support of his contention has relied upon the

decisions reported in 2008(1) SCC 224, 2008(3) SCC 446, 2001(5) ALT 347, 2002 (3) ALD 220.

The Respondent’s counsel has also submitted a memo wherein he has mentioned that the validity of

domestic enquiry was decided by the Tribunal vide order 8.3.2016 thereby domestic enquiry was held not legal.

Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, Respondent has filed WP No.31585/2017 in the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to allow the Writ Petition of Respondent vide order dated

30.1.2023 by setting aside the Tribunal’s order dated 8.3.2016. It is submitted that while disposing of the Writ

Petition, Hon’ble High Court also directed to pay lumpsum of Rs.2 lakhs to the Petitioner. Therefore, in the light of

the order in WP No.31585/2017, the present matter become infructuous and nothing stays alive for adjudication by

this Tribunal. Therefore, prayed for disposal of the matter being infructuous.

10.

In view of the submissions made by both the parties, perused the record.

11.

In the present matter, this Tribunal vide order dated 8.3.2016 has held domestic enquiry not valid and the

said order has been challenged by the Respondent in WP No.31585/2017 in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 30.1.2023. The

perusal of the order of the Hon’ble High Court reveals that the Respondent challenging the order dated 8.3.2016

passed by this court, has filed writ petition to quash the order dated 8.3.2016 regarding validity of domestic enquiry

passed in LC No.61/2010 holding as illegal and barred by principle of Res-judicata, without application of mind and

was made without adverting to all the earlier litigations before Hon’ble Court in several writ petitions by the applicant

earlier, which have been dismissed on merits. In this writ petition Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass the order

dated 30.1.2023 quoted as below:

“13.

From the above, it is clear that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to industrial adjudication also.

When the dispute raised about termination of services of temporary workman by way of writ petition, was disposed

of by reasoned order, on merits, and after contested hearing, and after that order becomes final, re- agitation of

same issue before Labour Court is barred by res judicata. In the case on hand also, The 1^st respondent herein filed

W.P. No.8489 of 1995 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the said Writ Petition was

disposed of by an order dated 16.10.1997 inter alia with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner

sympathetically. Pursuant to the said order, the management has once again examined the matter and confirmed

the order of removal. the petitioner herein made another representation dated 11.03.2002 and the said

representation was considered and rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the 1^st respondent herein filed

W.P. No.25176 of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The said Writ Petition was

dismissed by an Order dated 20.12.2002, observing that the Writ Petitioner is not entitled for consideration of his

representation for reemployment which request was already considered and rejected in 1997.

14.

On enunciating the law, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as well

as applying principles of res-judicata.

15.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the I.D. No.61 of 2010 order dated 08.03.2016 is hereby set

aside. However, no costs.

16. This court, with a sympathetic view and considering the poor condition of the employee /1st respondent, who is

the land looser, is inclined to direct the writ petitioner herein to pay some amount not less than one lakh rupees to

the 1^st respondent herein within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order.”

Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.31585/2017, the present claim petition of the

Petitioner is barred by principle of Res-judicata.

Thus, Points No.I & II are answered accordingly.

12.

Point No. III: In view of findings given at Points No.I & II, Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, in

this claim. Hence, claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly.

2536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

In the result, the petition is dismissed as barred by principle of Res-judicata.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

6^th day of July, 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, 19 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1213.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (44/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-23]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th July,2023

S.O. 1213.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.44/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2023-IR(B-II)-23]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

ID No. 44/2016

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 04.07.2023

Sh. V. Subramaniyan,

No. 15, Ram Nagar,

3^rd Cross Street, Karumandapam,

Trichy – 620 001.

Petitioner

AND

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2537

1. The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Trichy Main Branch,

Trichy – 620 001.

First Respondent

2. The Deputy General Manager,

Punjab National Bank

Circle Office (HRD)

Khandha Enclave

179, Sarojini Street

Ramnagar

Coimbatore-641009

Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Advocates, M/s S. Arunachalam & Associates

For the 1^st & 2^nd Respondent

Advocate, Sri S. Jayaraman

AWARD

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The Applicant Sh. V. Subramaniyan raises the dispute challenging the denial of his job as Courier / Peon by

the First Respondent Bank since 30.06.2015.

The case of the Applicant in brief is that he was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper in the First Respondent Bank

on 26.11.2005 with salary/wage at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day. He has studied up to 10^th standard. He was all along

doing the menial work such as Sweeping, Cleaning and File Stitching, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger

or a Peon. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Trichy. But the Respondent never recognized the duties

discharged by the Applicant nor was paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The Respondent

never considered to absorb the Applicant in full time job but on the other hand despite of his continuance in job

for 9 years, 7 months and 4 days, the Applicant was denied the job on 30.06.2015 without prior intimation. Since the

Applicant has rendered unblemished service for the said period, preference should have been given by the Respondent

to him for filling up the permanent vacancies pursuant to Bipartite Settlement dtd.19.10.1996. Besides he has

completed his continuous service of 480 days preceding to the date of denial/termination thus is eligible for

regularization under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act,

1961. It is further contended that when some vacancies arose the Applicant made oral and written Representations to

place him on permanent post. The 1st Respondent sent the Representation with his recommendation to the

Appropriate Authority, the 2nd Respondent for consideration. The Representation was never considered by the

Second Respondent, on the other hand resorted to direct recruitment of subordinate cadre posts for filling of 80 posts

in Trichy Circle vide advertisement on dtd 03.12.2014 in Tamil Daily i.e. “Thanthi”. The denial / termination from

job of the Applicant, without prior notice amounts to retrenchment within the purview of Section-2(oo) of ID Act. The

Applicant / Petitioner was seriously affected financially and mentally for no fault of him. He raised the dispute before

the Conciliation Officer – Asstt Labour Commissioner (C), Puducherry. The dispute since could not be resolved at the

said forum, the Applicant approached this Tribunal seeking relief of his reinstatement in service with back wages and

all other attendant benefits and regularization of his service from the date of his appointment

Both the Respondents entered appearance by filing Common Counter traversing almost all the pleadings

except the admitted facts. The main plank of contention is that the Applicant / Petitioner is not a “Workman” within

the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act. There exists no relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondents

and the Petitioner. The service condition of the workmen / employees of the Banking Industry including the

Respondent Bank are governed by Sastry Award and Desai Award and also various Bipartite Settlements. As per the

Respondent’s Bank Rules, the case of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is only to be considered

for such employment. In view of the settlement dtd. 07.05.1984 reached by the All India PNB Employees Federation

and the Bank, and the same settlement was circulated vide Circular No. 772 dtd. 17.05.1984. This settlement clearly

speaks about the procedures stated therein to be followed unless the Thikana system is prevailed in the particular area.

The said circular also prescribes that the recruitment of Part-Time / Full-Time Sweepers shall be as per the eligibility

criteria laid down by the Bank from time to time. In supersession of the said PD circular, the Bank had issued another

PAD Circular No. 72 dtd.11.02.2012 which also provides for Rules regarding the eligibility for posting of Part-Time

Sweepers in various branches. It is further contended that no right exists for any person to claim regularization /

absorption in Bank which dehors the Bank’s Rules and Guidelines. The applicability of Tamil Nadu Industrial

Establishment (Conferment of permanent status to workmen) Act at 1961 was challenged in view of ID Act. The

2538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent(s) specific pleading is that the Petitioner / Applicant was never appointed by any of the Respondent on

01.02.2005 or terminated from service on 03.07.2015. There was no Service Agreement in between the Bank and the

Petitioner. The claim of the Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Petitioner / Applicant is not entitled to

any relief as sought for.

4. In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The

Petitioner, V.Subramaniayan while examined himself as WW1, adduced evidence through one L. Shankaravadivelu as

WW2. The Petitioner relied on 19 documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W19. The Respondent examined the Manager

(HR), Sri Mitra Teja as MW1 and produced 6 documents marked as Ext.M1 to Ext.M6.

The following issues emerge in the pleadings of the parties:

(I) If the Applicant is a Workman within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act.

(II) Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between

the Respondent and the Petitioner.

(III) Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice?

(IV) To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?

Issues (i) & (ii)

Since tjhe Issues I & II are interlinked inter alia are taken up together. Both the Witnesses WW1, the

Petitioner and WW2 adduced evidence in support of the pleadings of the Claim Petition. The Petitioner states to have

joined the Respondent Bank on 26.11.2005 as Part-Time Sweeper (PTS) and all along doing the menial work such as

Sweeping, Cleaning and File Stitching and Clearing Cheques, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon.

The initial remuneration was paid to him on daily basis at the rate of Rs 150/-. But the Respondent never recognized

the duties discharged by the Applicant nor was paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The

Respondent never considered to absorb the Petitioner despite of his service of 9 years 7 months and 4 days. The

Applicant was denied the job on 30.06.2015 without prior intimation. In view of the Bipartite settlement dtd.

19.10.1996, the Applicant is entitled to get the preference to fill up the permanent vacancy when completes 5 years of

service. His representation in this regard was never considered. WW2 viz. Shri Shankaravaduvelu, one retired Clerk

of Respondent’s Bank now holds the post of the General Secretary of “Punjab National Employees Union” which is

affiliated to “All India Bank Employees Association” adduces evidence in support of the Petitioner. He categorically

states to have rendered 25 years of service in the Respondent Bank till his superannuation in the year 2019. He has

direct knowledge that since the engagement of the Petitioner dtd. 26.11.2005 as Temporary Employee as PTS in the

Respondent’s Bank, his service was utilized for whole day. The Petitioner was not only doing the menial work such

as Sweeping, Cleaning, File Stitching and Clearing Cheques etc., as good as the job of a Permanent Employee. But

the Applicant was never been paid wages / remuneration at par with a Permanent Employee.

The Respondent on the other hand adduces evidence through the Manager (HR), Mitra Teja who denies the

pleadings of the Petitioner and the statement of both the Witnesses. In support of the contentions made in Counter

Statement, it is stated that the Petitioner cannot plead to project himself as a “Workman” within the purview of

Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as much as he was engaged of and on whenever exigencies arose on the

part of the local Branch Manager who lacks any authority to give appointment to anyone. The Applicant on the other

hand has been adequately paid for his service rendered for the Branch. There exists no Employer-Employee

relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner amounts to “backdoor entry”

thus the claim for reinstatement with back wages is not sustainable. The Counsel for both parties advanced their

respective arguments drawing attention to the documents on record.

The Counsel for both parties advanced their respective arguments drawing attention to the documents on

record. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs with regard to the pleadings of the parties, it is to be

seen if the Petitioner is a “Workman” within the purview of the Act and if there exists any Employer-Employee

relationship in between the Petitioner and the Respondent. In this context the documents filed by the Petitioner are

taken into consideration. The documents are half hazard filed. Even though the Petitioner Claims to have joined the

Bank on 26.11.2005, no document in its support is filed. It reveals that Ext.W1 is nothing but Character Certificate in

favour of the Petitioner owing to good character and performance issued by the Manager of Vayalur Road Branch,

PNB on dtd. 04.11.2008. Ext.W2 is the Representation of the Petitioner on dtd. 25.06.2011 (in Tamil) addressing Dy.

General Manager to place him on the Permanent Post. Ext.W3 is the forwarding letter wherein the Senior Manager

forwarded the Application dtd. 25.06.2011 of the Petitioner to the Chief Manager (HRD), Trichy Circle to post him on

the vacancy arising on the transfer of one Mr. Subbaiah. The Petitioner though produced some documents under the

caption “Voucher being handled by the Petitioner” do not convince the relevancy to the pleadings of the Petitioner.

Out of those Ext.W4 dtd. 04.02.2012 though legible does not whisper the purpose for which the voucher is raised and

how it is connected to the Petitioner. Ext.W5 and Ext.W6 are absolutely not legible and not accepted as document.

Ext.W7 is the Bio-Data dtd. 24.01.2014. Ext.W8 is the Circular dtd. 31.05.2017 issued by the Head Office for

recruitment of Workman Staff (other than Godown Keeper). Ext.W17 is the same document. The Memorandum for

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2539

Absorption dtd. 22.02.2014 is marked as Ext.W9. The General Secretary sent a proposal for conversion of Part-Time

Employees as Peon to AIPNBEF vide Ext.W10 on dtd. 24.02.2014. Ext.W11 dtd. 12.02.2015 is Circular regarding

absorption of PTS. Ext.W12 is the letter of General Secretary to AIPNBEF regarding the Educational Qualification.

Letter from General Secretary to Employees to provide details vide Ext.W13 dtd. 27.05.2015. Ext.W14 dtd.

01.07.2015 is the Special Recruitment Drive. Ext.W18 & W19 are the extracts of 8^th and 9^th Bipartite Settlements.

Ext.W15 is the Representation dtd. 07.02.2016 to the Divisional Manager to consider him to post in permanent post.

In view of the discussion held supra, when the engagement of the Petitioner stands disputed, being

challenged by the Respondent, onus of proof lies on the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention even though the

petitioner produced a number of documents, none of those support the case of the Petitioner. It is found that the

Petitioner seriously failed to produce a single scrap of document with regard to her engagement on 26.11.2005 At the

cost of repetition, it needs mention that the none of the documents under Ext.W1 to Ext.W3 and Ext.W4 , Ext.W15

and Ext16 can be accepted as those do not substantiate the claim of the Petitioner regarding his engagement or

continuity of his job in Respondent’s Bank. It reveals that the then Branch Manager has simply forwarded the

applications of the Petitioner to the higher authority to consider him to fill up the vacancy post of PTS vide Ext.W3. It

does not disclose that the Petitioner was ever engaged on 26.11 2005. Ext.W15 and Ex.W16 (same) representations (in

Tamil) of the Petitioner addressed to the Manager and the Dy. Manager on 07.02.2016 to consider his case for filling

up the post of part time sweeper. No document has been produced if his applications were ever considered by the

Competent Authority. Even if for the sake of argument advanced by the Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted, the

Petitioner on several occasions submitted applications and representations as per the above exhibits, such mere fact

would not suffice to hold that she was engaged by the Competent Authority. It needs mention that no such

correspondence was made to her by the Respondent’s Bank in this regard. Besides, while the petitioner claimed to

have rendered service for the Respondent’s Bank, fails to file a single scrap of document, showing disbursement of

any amount towards his remuneration or wage, was ever made by the Respondent. The Petitioner failed to produce

any duty assignment chart as claims to have worked other than the her work of a Sweeper. On the other hand, the

pleadings and submissions of the Respondent is accepted that the Branch Manager as and when requires hands,

engages the local person and the adequate remuneration is being paid to them. In the given fact and circumstance,

even if for a while it is accepted that this Petitioner has purchased some Adhesive Stamps as per the Exhibits, she

must have been adequately paid. Besides, the Petitioner miserably failed to prove with regard to his claim of

continuity of her service from the date of his joining from 20.08.2001 till 30.06.2015. In this context, the Learned

Counsel for the Respondent relies on the judicial verdict of the High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of

Sri J. Alwin Edwin Vs. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Two Others vide WP No.23017/2019 dtd.

06.10.2020 .It is held by their Lordships that “in the absence of any candid document, the Petitioner cannot seek relief

on an illusory evidence stating that she was terminated from job without prior notice”.

Accordingly, in view of the facts discussed above, it is held that at any stretch of prevailed circumstance, the

Petitioner cannot claim to have been engaged as Part-Time Sweeper by the 1^st and 2^nd Respondent. Thus, the

Petitioner cannot be defined as a Workman under the 2(s) of the ID Act and also there exists no Employer-Employee

relationship in between the Respondent and Petitioner.

The Issues (i) & (ii) are answered against the Petitioner.

Issues (iii) & (iv)

10.

In view of the findings under Issue No. (i) and (ii) above, there needs no discussion on the Issues (iii) and

(iv).

The Issues (iii) & (iv) are answered in negative.

The Petitioner is accordingly is not entitled to any relief as sought.

The ID case stands dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

(Dictated and transcribed by PA and

corrected and pronounced in the open

court on this day the 04.07.2023)

I.D.No.44/2016

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Smt. V. Subramaniyan

WW2, Sri L. Sankaravadivelu

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

MW1, Sri Mitra Teja

2540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked:-

On the petitioners side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ext.W1 04.11.2008

Certificate of good performance given to

V. Subramanian

Ext.W2 25.06.2011

Representation from V. Subramanian

Ext.W3 25.06.2011

Transfer of posting of Subbaiah, PTS

Ext.W4 04.02.2012

Voucher being handled by V. Subramanian

Ext.W5 15.05.2013

Voucher being handled by V. Subramanian

Ext.W6 15.05.2013

Voucher being handled by V. Subramanian

Ext.W7 24.01.2014

Bio-Data of V. Subramanian enclosed alongwith the

Application

Ext.W8 31.05.2017

Regulation regarding absorption of PTS

Ext.W9 22.02.2014

Memorandum for absorption

Ext.W10 24.02.2014

Conversion of PTS as Peons

Ext.W11 04.03.2014

Circular regarding absorption of PTS

Ext.W12 12.02.2015

Educational Qualification to Peon

Ext.W13 27.05.2015

Letter from General Secretary from the Union

Ext.W14 01.07.2015

Special Recruitment trivet of Peon

Ext.W15 07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after termination to the

Branch Manager by V. Subramanian

Ext.W16 07.02.2016

Demand of Employment after termination to the

General Manager by V. Subramanian

Ext.W17 31.05.2017

Circular from the General Secretary of the

Employees Federation

Ext.W18 -

Relevant portion of 8^th Bipartite Settlement

Ext.W19 -

Relevant portion of 9^th Bipartite Settlement

On the Respondent’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

07.05.1984

Settlement regarding fixation of wages and

other Allied matters like Recruitment and

appointment

Ex.M2

11.02.2012

Circular issued by the Respondent Bank

Ex.M3

25.03.2014

Circular banning the Temporary

Appointment in the Bank

Ex.M4

21.09.2015

Circular issued by the bank with regard to

the Recruitment and appointment of Part-

Time Sweeper

Ex.M5

04.07.2016

Circular issued by the Bank with regard to

Alternate mechanism in lieu of interview for

recruitment of full Time/Part Time Sweeper

Ex.M6

28.11.2018

Circular No.430 Banning the Temporary

Appointment in the Bank.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2541

नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1214.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

सजचव, तंबाकू बोडथ, गुंटूर; क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, तम्बाकू बोडथ, गुंटूर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री जवक्रम सीतम्मा,

कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िथष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-िैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभथ

संख्या 249/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 12.07.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/144/2014-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2023

S.O. 1214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 249/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Secretary, Tobacco Board, Guntur ; The Regional Manager, Tobacco Board, Guntur, and Shri Vikram

Seethamma, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

12.07.2023.

[No. L-42012/144/2014-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 6^th day of July, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 249/2014

Between:

Vikram Seethamma,

W/o Late Bhushaiah,

R/o Turpupalem, Regulavari Bazar,

Medarmetla (PO),

Prakasham District-523 105.

.. Petitioner

And

The Secretary,

Tobacco Board,

G.T.Road, Guntur-522004.

Regional Manager,

Tobacco Board,

G.T.Road, Guntur-522004.

.. Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s. J.V. Prasad & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L--42012/144/20 14-IR (DU) dated

02.12.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal

between the management Tobacco Board and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Tobacco Board, Medarmetla of Ongole District, Andhra Pradesh

in terminating the services of Smt.V. Seethamma, Full Time Sweeper, w.e.f. August, 2013 is legal and

2542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? "

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.249/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Sweeper in the year 1990 at Tobacco Board,

Medarmetla on payment of Rs.20/- per day and worked continuously without any break, to the entire satisfaction of

superior officers. There were no complaints of against the petitioner in her entire service. It is submitted that the

respondent did not issue any appointment letter and pay slip to the petitioner during her service and petitioner used to

sign on the vouchers at the time of taking salary and not extended any benefits like provident fund and ESI, etc.. It is

submitted that the petitioner made an application to the respondents to increase the wages on par with other state

Government / Central Government and the Auction Superintendent, Medarmetla, addressed a letter dated 19.11.2004

to 1^st respondent to entrust the works of Group -D by enhancing her present wages from Rs.600/- to 1260/ per month

and accordingly 1^st respondent accorded permission vide letter dated 09.12.2004 for utilizing the petitioners services

from part time Sweeper to full time sweeper on consolidated wages of Rs.1260/- per month. It is submitted that the

respondents further enhanced the wages vide office order dated 30.12.2011 from Rs.3600 to 5354/- per month in the

year 2011 w.e.f.01 .04.2011 and accordingly petitioner received the arrears of wages from Respondents. While so,

the respondents terminated the petitioner from service w.e.f. August,2013, without conducting any enquiry, notice

pay, compensation is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted

that the petitioner gave a representation dated 10.10.2013 to the respondents requesting for reinstatement, but there is

no response from the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner gave representation dated 30.12.2013 to the

Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Vijayawada, requesting to intervene the matter and to direct the

respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service. The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Vijayawada

issued notices to the respondents for joint meetings / conciliation proceedings and the respondents refused to reinstate

the petitioner in to service. After several meetings the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Vijayawada

closed conciliation meetings and sent the failure report to the Government of India. It is submitted' that the action of

the respondent by terminating the petitioner from service w.e.f. August, 2013 is illegal and unjustified. The

termination is violation of the Sec 25 E, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent neither gave any

notice nor any retrenchment compensation to the petitioner at the time of termination. Number of her juniors

awarded with temporary status scheme of 1993, are still working. The action of the respondent in terminating the

petitioner and continuing the juniors is illegal and arbitrary. The last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs.5,354/- per

month. It is submitted that the petitioner never asked for regularization. It is further submitted that entire family is

depending on the petitioner’s income and after termination of the petitioner, they are facing untold problems and

hardship. The petitioner is the only bread earner in the family. It is submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and in

spite of best efforts made, he is unable to secure any alternative employment till today. The Government of India

sanctioned 140 posts of MTS to Tobacco Board and out of the 140 posts of MTS 44 posts are vacant as on

31.03.2014. Therefore prayed to pass an Award directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with

continuity of service, with full back wages and with all other attendant benefits.

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is submitted that the Tobacco Board is formed in the year 1975 by an Act of Parliament with an object to regulate

the production and marketing of FCV tobacco and work for the development of tobacco industries and welfare of the

tobacco farmers. The Tobacco Board is a Government body constituted under a separate statute to undertake statutory

function of development and growth of tobacco. The Board is not a profit making organization and was established for

the welfare of the tobacco growers. The Board is governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the Central

Government. It is therefore submitted that the respondent-Board is neither an "industry" as defined u/s. 2 (j) of the

Industrial Disputes Act nor the petitioner is a workman as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is

therefore submitted that the above case is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is submitted that as the

petitioner was working as part-time Sweeper from 1998 on the payment of wages of Rs.600/- per month, but not from

the year 1990 as stated by the petitioner. At the request of the Auction Superintendent, Medarametla vide his letter

dated 19/11/2004 regarding enhancement of wages and utilizing the services of part-time Sweeper as full-time

sweeper, the Head Office, Guntur has considered the proposal of Auction Superintendent and accorded permission to

utilize the services of part-time Sweeper as full-time Sweeper on payment of Rs. 1260/- per month. Later Board

enhanced her wages along with other workers. The petitioner's last drawn payment was Rs.5,354/- per month. It is

submitted that since the petitioner was engaged as daily wage sweeper on temporary basis no appointment orders were

issued. The Board did not give any assurance for her continuance in the Board. The petitioner's wages are being paid

through voucher. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner filed a Petition before the Controlling Authority

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on 10-07-2014. As per the Notice No. 33/32/2014-E2, dated 13.10.2015

issued by Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act., 1972 & Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),

Vijayawada as calculated by Asst. Labour Commissioner(Central), Vijayawada, Board had paid Gratuity of

Rs.59,496/- to Smt. V. Seethamma, Ex-daily wage Sweeper, Vellampall1-II Office on 17.11.2015. She acknowledged

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2543

the receipt of the same. It is submitted that consequent on closure of one of the branches called as Auction Platform,

Keesara, Krishna District, the existing regular staff of Keesara were transferred to other platforms where the vacancies

are available. The regular sweeper Smt. K. Lurthamma was transferred from Keesara to Vellampalli-II, she reported

for duty on 25.9.2013. Therefore, the services of Smt. V. Seethamma were withdrawn w.e.f. 18/10/2013. It is further

submitted that the Head Office reviewed the workload of daily wagers in all the offices of the Respondent-Board

including the office of Tobacco Board at Vellampalli-II and decided to withdraw the services of daily wagers where

the regular staff are posted. As such, the petitioner was informed not to attend duties from 18.10.2013 as the regular

joined the duties. It is submitted that the Respondent-Board has not given any assurance for her continuance in the

Board. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim for continuance in the Board. The Board can not engage daily

wage persons without having sufficient work load. It is submitted that the as per the Government of India, Department

of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Office Memorandum No.51016/2/90-Estt.(C), dated 10.9.1993 the casual labourers

who are in employment on the date of issue of the Office Memorandum and who have rendered continuous services at

least for one year and they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 day week) were given temporary status. As the petitioner was working from 1998 onwards, she cannot

be conferred with temporary status as provided under the scheme. The petitioner herself stated in her representations

dated 25.5.2001 that she had been working from December, 1998. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that her

juniors are working on temporary status is absolutely false. It is submitted that out of the 140 MTS posts sanctioned

by the Government 30 years back 96 are working as on 31/03/2014. The Board has recruitment regulations for all the

posts including the post of MTS (erstwhile Group-D Peon/ Watchman/Sweepers etc.). Further, the required

qualification for the post of MTS is 10 Class or its equivalent. As such, the Chairman/Executive Director/Secretary/or

any other officer of the Board has no power to provide employment on regular basis without following the procedure

of Recruitment Regulations framed by the Government of India. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief

sought in the above case, and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may

be pleased to dismiss the above case with costs, in the interest of justice.

Petitioner got examined herself as WW1 and marked photocopies of eight documents which were marked as

Ex.W1 to W8. Ex.W1 is the representation to the Chairman, Tobacco Board, Guntur; Ex.W2 is the letter issued to R1

by the Auction Superintendent dated 19.11.2004; Ex.W3 is reply to Ex.W2; Ex.W4 is the office order dated

30.12.2001; Ex.W5 is the representation to the Respondent dt. 1010.2013; Ex.W6 is the representation to ALC(C) dt.

30.12.2014; Ex.W7 is the minutes of conciliation and Ex.W8 is the failure report by ALC(C), Vijayawada.

Respondent also examined Sri K. Satyanarayana, as MW1 on behalf of the Management.

Counsel for Petitioner filed written arguments and no oral arguments submitted by both parties.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, following points emerge for determination:-

Whether action of the Respondent by terminating the Petitioner Smt. V. Seethamma from service w.e.f.

august, 2013 is in contravention of the provision of Sec.25F, G, H of the I.D. Act, 1947?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for temporary status under the scheme as alleged in the claim statement?

III.

To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

FINDINGS :-

Point No.I: Petitioner claims that she was appointed as Daily Wage Sweeper in the year 1990 at Tobacco

Board, Medarmetla on payment of Rs.20/- per day and worked continuously without any break, to the entire

satisfaction of superior officers. There were no complaints of against the petitioner in her entire service. It is also

claimed that the respondent did not issue any appointment letter and pay slip to the Petitioner during her service and

petitioner used to sign on the vouchers at the time of taking salary and not extended any benefits like provident fund

and ESI, etc.. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s wages were enhanced vide office order dated 30.12.2011 from

Rs.3600/- to 5354/- per month in the year 2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and accordingly petitioner received the arrears of

wages from Respondents. But the respondents terminated the petitioner from service w.e.f. August,2013, without

conducting any enquiry, notice pay, compensation is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act.

On the other hand, the Respondent has contended that petitioner was engaged as daily wage Sweeper on

temporary basis and no appointment order was issued to her. Her wages were paid through voucher. It is also

contended that on closure of one of the branches called as Auction Platform, Keesara, Krishna District, the existing

regular staff of Keesara were transferred to other platforms where the vacancies were available. The regular sweeper

Smt. K. Lurthamma was transferred from Keesara to Vellampalli-II, she reported for duty on 25.9.2013. Therefore,

the services of Smt. V. Seethamma were withdrawn w.e.f. 18/10/2013. It is also contended that the Head Office

reviewed the workload of daily wagers in all the offices of the Respondent-Board including the office of Tobacco

Board at Vellampalli-II and decided to withdraw the services of daily wagers where the regular staff are posted. As

2544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

such, the petitioner was informed not to attend duties from 18.10.2013 as the regular joined the duties. Respondent

denies each of material allegations made therein and Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

In support of her claim Petitioner has filed affidavit of chief examination wherein she has reiterated the plea

taken in the claim statement. In support of her claim Petitioner has submitted the photocopies of documents viz.,

Ex.W1 is an application to increase the wages as per the governed rules, Ex.W2 is the order regarding enhancement

of wages from Rs.600/- to s.1260/- per month. Further Ex.W3 is letter dated 9.12.2004 addressed to Auction

Superintendent, Tobacco Board, wherein the permission was accorded permission to utilize the services of part-

time sweeper as full-time sweeper on consolidated wages. Further Ex.W4 is an office order regarding enhancement

of daily wages. Ex.W5 is copy of representation moved by the Petitioner and Ex.W6 is copy of order of the ALC(C)

wherein a request to intervene in the matter regarding the services of the Petitioner was made. Further Petitioner has

examined herself as WW1 and in cross examination WW1 has admitted that as per Ex.W1 she joined in the service of

Respondent as a daily wage sweeper in the year 1998. She has denied the suggestion that, “it is not true to suggest

that Respondent Board has appointed daily wagers as and when required.”

10.

On the other hand Respondent has examined MW1, who has supported the contentions made in the counter.

11.

Thus, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner as well as Respondent, it is

established that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent as a daily wage sweeper in the year 1998 and her

appointment was made subject to exigencies of work arise in the office of the Respondent in case of shortage of

staff, or regular employees are on leave. Since the exigencies of the work in the Respondent office could not arise

due to surplus staff. Therefore, there was no work available for the Petitioner. Hence, the Respondent disengaged

the Petitioner from the service of daily wager w.e.f. August, 2013. As far as the protection of provision Sec.25F, from

retrenchment is concerned, the initial burden of proof lies upon the Petitioner to prove that her retrenchment from the

service was done in contravention of the Sec.25F read with Sec.25B.

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average payfor every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by

the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

12. As regards the question of burden of proof to prove mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service

in 12 months in a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination is concern, Hon’ble Apex court has laid

down principle in number of decisions as follows:

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was

denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot be

regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had

worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2545

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the workman to

show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:

"The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our opinion, the

Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse inference drawn

erroneously ..”

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex Court

held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service."

In the case of Mohan Lal vs. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225, Hon'ble Apex Court held, "Before a

workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that he has

been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL also laid down the principle that how to

count 240 days of service within one year and held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a workman in

continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period

of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting

backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the

fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service

which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12 months just

preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has

rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the workman

pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the workman is in continuous

service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"

In the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Management of BEL, Hon’ble Apex Court have held the principle that how to

calculate and determine the number of 240 days of continuous service of workman as required u/s 25F and 25B of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” As per law laid down by the Apex Court, “continuous 240 days of service for a

period of one year should be counted backward and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment.”

Thus, in view of the provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,

the Petitioner has to prove that she had worked continuously for 240 days in the service of the Respondent just

preceding from the date of termination. But the Petitioner failed to discharge the initial burden of proving 240 days

continuous service as per provision of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, her claim that she was terminated in

violation of Sec.25F, G, & H of the I.D. Act, 1947 is not tenable.

Thus, Point No.I is decided accordingly.

13.

Point No.II:

Petitioner claimed that several of her juniors has been awarded with temporary status

under the scheme of 1993 and they are still working. The action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the

Petitioner and in continuing her juniors is illegal and arbitrary. In this context, Petitioner examined herself as WW1

wherein she has reiterated in chief examination her claim as alleged in the Claim statement. But in cross examination

she states, “I am not aware that workers who have been appointed prior to 1990 have been regularized in their post or

not.” But the Petitioner could not give any instance that any person appointed with her in the year 1998 as a daily

wager has been accorded status of Temporary Employee under Temporary Status Scheme of 1993. Even no

documentary evidence has been filed by the Petitioner to substantiate her plea in this regard.

14.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that as per the Government of India, Department of Personnel

and Training (DOPT) office memo No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.9.93, casual labourers who are in employment

on the date of issue of the office memorandum and who have rendered continuous services at least 240 days were

given temporary status. As the Petitioner was working from 1998 she could not be conferred with temporary status

in the service as provided in the Scheme. The Petitioner herself stated in her representation that she has been

working from 1998, therefore, contention of the Petitioner that her juniors were working on temporary status is

absolutely false. The Respondent witness MW1 has reiterated the same contention in the chief examination. But

the Petitioner did not cross examine MW1 on this point of eligibility criteria under temporary status scheme, 1993.

Further, MW1 has stated that some casual workers have been given temporary status, those who have been engaged

before 1993. It is not true to suggest that some of the juniors of Petitioner were given temporary status. MW1 further

stated that, “It is a fact that by 31.3.2014 there were 40 vacancies of MTS posts in their office. It is not correct to

suggest that since there is sufficient vacancies in the Respondents office the Petitioner is entitled to get a service of

temporary status in the Tobacco Board and the workmen is entitled to be re-instate in service along with back wages

and other benefits.” Since under the temporary status scheme she was not found eligible as she was appointed much

later from the scheme, 1993 in the year 1998. Therefore, since the Petitioner have been appointed in the year 1998,

she was not covered as per OM of DOPT dated 10.9.1993 for temporary status. As such, she is not entitled for any

2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

scheme regarding temporary status under the scheme. Therefore, Petitioner is failed to prove her claim in this

respect also.

Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly.

15.

Point No.III: In view of the finding given in Point Nos. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any

relief, hence, claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

Result:

The action of the management of Tobacco Board, Medarmetla of Ongole Distrcit, Andhra Pradesh in terminating the

services of Smt. V. Seethamma, Full Time Sweeper, w.e.f. August, 2013 is legal and justified. The workman is not

entitled to any relief as prayed for. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 6^th

day of July, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Smt. V. Seethamma

MW1: Sri K. Satyanarayana

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of representation to the Chairman, Tobacco Board, Guntur

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of letter issued to R1 by the Auction Superintendent dated 19.11.2004

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of letter, reply to Ex.W2

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of office order dated 30.12.2001

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of representation to the Respondent dt. 1010.2013

Ex.W6:

Photocopy of representation to ALC(C) dt. 30.12.2014

Ex.W7:

Photocopy of minutes of conciliation

Ex.W8:

Photocopy of failure report by ALC(C), Vijayawada.

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1215.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (14/2005) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12011/167/2004-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2023

S.O. 1215.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

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

[No. L-12011/167/2004- IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2547

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 14 OF 2005

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

UCO Bank.

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of UCO Bank : Sri Pradip Kr. Upadhyay, Manager (Law).

On behalf of the Contractor M/s. M. Nath & Co.

: Absent

On behalf of the Union/Workman:

Sri A. Panigrahi, Authorised Representative.

Dated: 15^th June, 2023

AWARD

By Order No L-12011/167/2004 (IR)(B-II) dated 21-04-2005, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

excise of the power conferred under sub section 1(d) and 2(A) of section of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: –

“Whether the contract system between UCO Bank Head Office, Kolkata and M/s. M. Nath & Co. is genuine

or sham? Whether Mr. Dilip Kr. Shaw and Mr. Sailendra Nath (working undr M/s. Nath & Co.) who are working in

the Bank’s premises in the jobs of operation of Generator & Electrical maintenance at the Bank’s premises located at

UCO Bank, Head Office (Alipur Staff Quarter), 1/1, Alipur Avenue, Kolkata- 700 027 are entitled for regularisation

of their services in UCO Bank or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

The facts that are necessary for determination of the above issue in gist is that UCO Bank has engaged M/s.

M. Nath & Co. service provider for operation and maintenance of DG Set and electric maintenance work at UCO

House, 1/1, Alipur Avenue, Calcutta. Therefore, the contractor engaged the concerned workmen mentioned in the

reference order as an Electrician and Generator Operator.

It is the claim of the Union/workmen that they have been performing the job of an electrician and Generator

Operator in the establishment of the Bank for more than 18 years. They were engaged by the Bank through the

contractor in place of vacant posts of Electrician and Generator Operator arisen due to death, promotion and transfer

of regular staff. The nature of work discharged by them is semi-skilled in nature. The job which they performed is of

perennial in nature and integral part of the bank.

Normal routine or function of the Bank would be jeopardized if the nature of work performed by them is

discharged by a normal contract labours. They are semi-skilled worker having vast technical experience. They have

been engaged by the Bank for doing perennial nature of job through sham contractor. That Bank had earlier absorbed

Sri M. Majumder and Sri Parmananda Behera, contractor employees in the post of Clerk and Gardener cum Farash on

the basis of an agreement dated 31-01-1979. That the contractor whom the Bank has engaged does not have license as

required under section 12 of Contractor Labours (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as “CLRA

Act”). Similarly, the UCo Bank too is not a registered establishment under section 7 of the CLRA Act. Therefore, the

Bank has no authority to engage any contractor or engage any contractor labour to do its perennial nature of core jobs.

Therefore, the union and workmen have prayed for absorption and regularization of the concerned workmen as regular

employees of UCo Bank in view of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966, under which Electrician and A.C. Plant

Operator, Generator Operator and Helper are declared as semi-skilled workmen in the subordinate cadre of the Bank

employees.

On the other hand the management of the Bank in its written statement has alleged the schedule of reference

itself describe the workmen as employees of its contractor/service provider. Such fact ipso facto proves the workmen

were never engaged by the Bank. There exit no relationship of employer and employee between the Bank and the

workman.

It has further alleged that the Union which has espoused the dispute on behalf of the contractor’s workmen,

has no authority to raise dispute in respect of employee who are not regular employee of the Bank. It has also

contended that service provider through whom the workmen were engaged in its establishment to do the job of

electrician has less than twenty employees and as such it is not required to obtain license under section 12 of the

CLRA Act.

2548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act, has been issued in respect of the establishment of the

Bank, prohibiting it to engage any contractor laborers. It has also contended that Bank having engaged more than 20

contractor employees at its different establishments it has duly registered itself under section 7 of the CLRA Act,

1970.

It has also contended, the management of UCo Bank, utilized the services contractors for temporary jobs to

ensure operation and routine maintenance of the bank’s A.C. Plant and Generator Set and also fixing tube lights,

holders, switches etc. The management of the Bank make payment to the contractors and who in turn make payment

to its employees at applicable rate of minimum wages. For extra work, additional payment is made on production of

Log Book. Those employees are not under the control of the Bank. There is no sanctioned post of

Electrician/Generator Operator in the Bank. Further without following the recruitment procedure the contractor

workmen cannot be absorbed in the category of regular employees. Accordingly, the Bank has prayed for dismissal of

the reference.

The record shows that contractor employer/service provider has failed to appear and filed its written

statement and as such it has been proceeded exparte.

The Union has examined the Sri Sailendra Nath as W.W.no.1 and 12 documents produced by the union have

been marked as Exhibit-W-1 to W-12 on formal proof being dispensed with from the side of the Union vide order

dated 07-09-2006.

The management has examined Sri Tarun Sen, Chief Manager (Engineer) as M.W.1 and three documents

produced by the management have been marked as ExhibitM-1 to M-3 on formal proof being dispensed with on

07-09-2006.

Representative of the union/workmen has referred to the following decisions in support of their contention

and claim statement;

(1)

Mukund Ltd. –vs- Mukund Staff and Officers’ Association. 2004, LAB.I.C. 2791.

(2)

Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat –vs- Hind Mazdoor Sabha (1995

SOL Case No.234).

(3)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari

Sanghatana (Maharashtra SRTC) [(2009) 8 SCC 558].

(4)

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs Krishna Gopal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016).

(5)

Tinku K & Others –Vs- Union of India [WP (C) No.26934 of 2022].

On the other hand the management has referred to the following decisions in support of its case and

contention:-

1. Jiban Krishna Mondal & Ors –vs- State of West Bengal reported in (2015) 12 SCC 74 (para 29).

2. State of Karnataka & Ors. –vs- Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported kin (200^) 4 SCC 1 (para 15, 15 and 17).

3. Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. –vs- Air India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 (para 83,87 and 89).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs- Uma Debi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1

has been pleased to hold “public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set

down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our Constitutional scheme envisages employment by the

government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is

the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated

equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.

A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got down, is

not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. But, a regular process of

recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time are

filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other.

Regular appointment must be the rule.

Equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for

equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Buttressing these fundamental rights, Article 309 provides

that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of

service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. As a

part of the affirmative action recognized by Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 335 provides for special

consideration in the matter of claims of the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for employment.

The States have made Acts, Rules or Regulations for implementing the above constitutional guarantees and any

recruitment to the service in the State or in the Union is governed by such Acts, Rules and Regulations. The

Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the

requirements set down therein.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2549

In spite of this scheme, there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to

employ persons, in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands or taking them in without

following the required procedure, to discharge the duties in respect of the posts that are sanctioned and that are

required to be filled in terms of the relevant procedure established by the Constitution or for work in temporary posts

or projects that are not needed permanently. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of

persons temporarily or on daily wages, to meet the needs of the situation. What is sought to be pitted against this

approach, is the so called equity arising out of giving of temporary employment or engagement on daily wages and the

continuance of such persons in the engaged work for a certain length of time. Such considerations can have only a

limited role to play, when every qualified citizen has a right to apply for appointment, the adoption of the concept of

rule of law and the scheme of the Constitution for appointment to posts. It cannot also be forgotten that it is not the

role of courts to ignore, encourage or approve appointments made or engagements given outside the constitutional

scheme. In effect, orders based on such sentiments or approach would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the

jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted by us while adopting the Constitution. The approving of such

acts also results in depriving many of their opportunity to compete for public employment.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to quote the following from the judgment that has

been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.N. Nanjundappa vs T.Thimmaiha & Anrs (1972) 2 SCR 799-:

“Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there

has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not can go to the root of the appointment.

Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede such proposition out be usage to introduce new

head of appointment in defence of rules or it might have the effect of setting usage naught the rules”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to consider State of Haryana Vs Piara Singh & Ors (1992) 3,

SCR 826, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held “ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of posts is the

prerogative of executive. It is the executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law

made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be can be exercised either

by making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of (in the absence of such Rules) by issuing

Rules/ Instructions in exercised of its executive power. The Court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of

fundamental rights, statutory provision, rules and other instructions, if any, governing the condition of service”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to consider another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Director, Institution of Management, Development, U.P. vs Smt Puspa Srivastava (1992) 3 SCR 712 where it

was held “since the appointment was on purely contractual and adhoc basis on consolidated pay for a fix period and

terminable without notice, when the appointment came to an end by efflux of time, the appointee had no right to

continue in the post and to claim regularisation in service in the absence of any role providing for regularisation after

the period of service. A limited relief for directing the appointee to be permitted with sympathetic consideration to be

continued in service till the end of concerned calendar year was issued. When the appointment was purely on adhoc

and contractual basis for a limited period on the expiry of that period right to remain in the post come to an end.”

The Hon’ble Supreme has further been pleased to consider Ashwini Kumar –vs- State of Bihar (1996)

Supplementary (10) SCR 120 and where it was observed “So far as the question of confirmation of these employees

whose entry was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted the question of confirmation or regularisation of any

irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on adhoc

basis mean an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. If the initial entry itself is unauthorised and is not

against any sanction vacancy, question of regularising the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy would never

survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in

futility.

Further, Uma Rani-vs - Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors.(2004) 7 SCC 112 was discussed and where

it was held when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules

framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications, the appointment would be illegal and cannot be regularised

by the State. That regularisation is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any state within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution of India or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

Regularisation further more cannot be give permanence to an employee whose service are adhoc in nature. It was also

held that the fact some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for

regularisation.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that while directing that appointments, temporary or causal, to be

regularised or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned persons has worked for some time

and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either

temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes

open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain –not at arm’s length - since he might have been searching

for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on the ground alone it would

2550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not have appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take view the person who has

temporarily or causal got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so it will be creating

another mode of appointment which is not permissible. If the Court were to void a contractual employment of this

nature on the ground that the parties who are not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court

to grant any relief to the employees. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given

the exigencies of administration and if imposed, only man that some people who at least got employment temporarily,

contractual or causally would not be getting even the employment when securing of such employment brings at least

some succor to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not

compel to accept a casual or temporary employment if one incline to go in for such employment. It is in that context

that one has to proceed on the basis that employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequence

following from it. In other works, even while accepting the employment, the persons concerned knows the nature of

his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in a real sense and the terms. The claim acquired by him in the post

in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to

enable the cause of the procedure established, for making regular appointment to available post in the services of the

State. The theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or causal

employees”.

Let me decide the present case on the basis of the principle enunciated in the above decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

Prima facie the claim statement and oral evidence of one of the workmen do not reflect the workmen were

engaged as an electrician/Generator Operator by a contractor/service provider of the Bank, rather it shows that the

workmen were directly appointed by the bank on casual basis to do work in various capacity in the post of Electrician/

Generator Operator, but they were/are not paid salary and wages at per with other employees of the Bank. The

workmen are working under the control and directions of the Chief Officer, Head Office, Planning and Development

Department and overall under the control and supervision of Deputy Chief Officer an Electrical Engineer of the Bank,

but payment was made to them through vouchers and later through a sham contractor named M/s. M. Nath & Co.

Whereas Exhibit-M-2 shows union has raised a dispute before A.L.C. in respect of the concerned workmen

claiming their regularisation in Bank for working more than 18 years. It has also been alleged that the concerned

workmen were shown engaged by bank through a sham contractor.

Exhibit-M-3 shows that such dispute was settled in between the workmen and their employer M/s. M.Nath &

Co. as the employer agreed to pay Rs.88.30 paisa per day towards wages w.e.f. 01-06-2004 and other demands raised

by the Union/Workmen in its representation dated 19-05-2004 was treated as dropped.

Exhibit-M-2 shows that UCO Bank had issued fresh terms of monthly payment to its contractor M/s. M.Nath

& Co. in view of wage settlement that took place before the A.L.C. and gave direction to the cotractor to pay

minimum wage of Rs.88.30 per day to the workers engaged by it for working in the establishment of the Bank. It

further shows Bank gave direction to the contractor to furnish copy of payment document along with monthly bills.

Such document leave no room for doubt Sri Sailen Nath and Sri Dilip Shaw were employees of M/s. M.Nath & Co. to

whom contractor for electric maintenance and operation and maintenance for D.G.Set at UCO House, 1/1, Alipur

Avenue, Calcutta was given.

W.W. 1 in his evidence recorded under oath has stated, he has been working as a sub staff of UCO Bank

since 1980. He works as a Geneerator Operator, Pump Operator and also as an Electrician. He possess electrical

license for doing the job of an Electrician. He works as an Electrician through out the year in the establishment of

the Bank. Some time he has to discharge the function of a watchman in the absence of the regular watchman.

Sometimes he has to work as a A.C. mechanic in the bank quarters. The Log Book and Atenandance Register are

maintained by bank. Duty chart is prepared by Debu Babu of the bank.

He works against a permanent vacancy of an Electrician named Sri Paritosh Roy who was transferred from

UCO House. Sri Dilip Shaw also works as an Electrician there since 1982.

However, he in his chief admitted initial M/s. M. Nath & Co. engaged them in the bank but interview was

taken by the bank and their licenses were checked by the bank officials. He has also stated Md. Selim and Md.

Lasin were two permanent employees of the bank were Liftmen in the staff quarter. After their promotion their

work is done by contractor’s employee.

He has also stated that permanent Electrician of the bank gets Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month but he is

paid only lump sum amount of Rs.4,029/- per month. He has also stated that there is a periodical enhancement in

the wages paid to them. He has also stated that M/s. M. Nath & Co. has engaged more than 20 to 30 workmen in

the establishment in the bank.

During cross examination he said that he does not have any document to prove that wages was paid to him by

the bank directly. That he has no appointment letter issued by the bank. He has admitted raising a dispute before

the Conciliation Officer in 2004 against M/s. M. Nah & Co. for denying minimum wages to him.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2551

Apparently, the evidence of the witness appears to be inconsistent and self-contradictory. In order to get

regularization he has stated that he is a sub staff of bank and working for the bank since 1980 but at the same time

he has stated he was engaged by M/s. M. Nath & Co. and he is a licensed Electrician but Exhibit-M-3 prima facie

shows the two workmen under reference were/are employees of M/s. M. Nath & Co.

Sri Tarun Sen, M.W.-1, Chief Manager (Engineer), Zonal Office, UCo Bank in his evidence stated that the

workman who has espoused the present dispute was and is the employee of M/s. M. Nath & Co. That Bank has no

control, authority and supervision over any person engaged by the contractors who was entrusted to carry out the

contract job of operation and maintenance of A.C. Plant, Generator Set and electricity. Conciliation proceeding

was held before the A.L.C., (Central) Calcutta between M/s. M. Nath & Co. and its employee on 09-08-2004 with

regard to minimum wages.

He has stated the Bank takes Registration Certificate from A.L.C. if the labour contractors engaged by the

Bank is more than 20. Contract labouers of the contractor of the UCO Bank are working as Electricians,

Electrician-cum-Generator Operator. He has stated without seeing the office record that after the retirement and

promotion of Salil Bose, Sudhir Pal, Paritosh Roy and M.R. Dutta who were working as Electrician cum

Generator Operator the bank introduced contract labour system.

During cross examination he stated that electric maintenance, maintenance of A.C. Plant and operator and

maintenance of Generator Set is required for maintenance of the office and contractors are engaged for doing such

work which are not perennial in nature.

Exhibit-W-1 & M-3 further prove that union had raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (central),

Kolkata on 27-11-2003 for absorption and regularization of the concerned workmen in the bank for working for

more than 18 years under a sham contractor. Such dispute was ended with execution of Memorandum of

Settlement before the A.L.C. and where the contractor employer M/s. M. Nath & Co. was directed to pay

minimum wages to which the workmen was entitled to. It further shows the workmen on execution of such

settlement had dropped all their other demands including regularization. Therefore, it appears the concerned

workmen were not directly engaged by the Bank on contractual basis as alleged by WW-1, rather he was an

employee of the contractor of the Bank.

The Exhibit-W-3 appears to be the Memorandum of Settlement dated 31-01-1979 vide which the bank had

absorbed 13 persons in different categories like clerical and subordinate posts w.e.f. 02-02-1979, but it does not

disclose those absorbed persons were employees of contractors of the Bank.

Exhibit-W-8 appears to be memo of Central Bank of India dated 31-12-1987 in respect of appointment of one

Sri Shyamal Kar was appointed as Plant Operator / Helper in subordinate cadre, but this Tribunal is not inclined

to consider those documents as it appears to be the photocopy and without any authenticity of the same, that it

was indeed issued by the Central Bank.

Now, law is settled with regard to claim made by the contractor labours for their absorption in regular post,

they have to prove that they were engaged to do perennial nature of core work in the establishment of the

principal employer. The work done by them is not temporary or seasonal in nature. They discharge their duty in

the establishment of the principal employer under the direct supervision and control of the principal employer, or

the principal employer has the authority to take disciplinary action against them and has authority to dismiss them

from the service.

It is a matter of common knowledge the core function of the bank is receiving money, keeping money of the

customers and lending money. Therefore, it appears that contractors were/are engaged to provide incidental

services of maintenance of electricity, Generator Set, A.C. Plants.

From the above documents it is seen the Bank used to get all services which is incidental to its business done

through its contractors/service providers’ employees. The concerned workmen were employed by the contractor

to do the job of an Electrician/Generator operator etc. Their salary was paid by the contractor and who used to

raise bills and submit before the Bank along with Log book in case of overtime allowance. No cogent and

satisfactory evidence have come on record to show that bank indeed used to supervise the work of the workmen

and the bank has/had the authority to dismiss the workman.

It is admitted fact that the contractor had less than 20 employees working for it at the relevant time.

Therefore, in view of provision of section 1 (4) (a) read with section 12 of the CLRA Act, the contractor need not

obtain license for supply of employees to the principal employer. Therefore, question of obtaining license under

the Act by the contractor does not arise.

However, Exhibit-W-11 shows that UCO Bank have engaged more than 32 contractors to do different nature

of works such as plumbing, lift installation, electrification works, comprehensive maintenance work, maintenance

of A.C. machines and maintenance of the same, internal electric works, operation of D. G. Set, HT and Lt, OCB

and water pump, maintenance of the same, electric maintenance works, telecom maintenance works, repair and

2552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

renovation of building, by engaging more than 20 contractor employees in different offices which are not related

to the core function of the bank. Exhibit –W-11 further shows that bank was already a registered establishment

under CLRA Act.

Therefore, it is seen the concerned workmen were engaged by contractor having less than 20 employees at

the relevant time and question of obtaining license by it under CLRA Act does not arise. On the other hand the

Bank having engaged more than 32 contractors to do different kind of jobs at its different establishments it was/is

duly registered under the CLRA Act.

It is worth to mention here that no material whatsoever has come from the side of the Union or workman, that

bank is a notified establishment under section 10 of the CLRA Act. In that case the bank is not prevented from

engaging contractor labour under the Act to get its incidental/non-core work done through contractors’

employees.

Further, the Union has failed to produce any document to prove that the workmen are/were working against

the sanctioned vacant post.

Nothing has come on record that a contract between the principal employer and the contractor employer to be

sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deprive contractor’s employee with permanent job and employment

benefits. More so, no evidence has come on record to show under which officer of the bank the concerned

workman used to work or under whose direction he used to discharge his duty/work. Therefore, it is seen that

bank had no control over the employees of the contractor. Nothing has come on record to show that Bank has

power to dismiss them from service after holding domestic enquiry. In fact, it has come on record salary is paid

to the concerned workmen by the contractors.

The work of an Electrician cannot be said to be perennial in nature. His service is required only as and when

some fault occurs in the system. The nature of his job is not like that of a regular staff of Bank. So the job of an

Electrician cannot be said to be perennial in nature.

Further, union failed to produce documents or examine those employees of the bank before this Tribunal to

prove indeed they were /are in permanent regular employees of the bank in subordinate cadre and they discharge

the functions of Electricians, A.C. Plant Operator, DG Set Operator and Pump Operator or on their transfer,

retirement or on promotion vacancy was created and against such vacancy the bank instead of filling up the post

by regular recruitment got the work done through contractors. The union miserably failed to produce documents

to show there is sanctioned posts in the bank in respect of D.G.Set operator and Electrician and the post is still

lying vacant.

In view of Uma Debi (supra) that no regularization or absorption of contractors’ employee can be made, no

matter how long he might have worked and that too without following the recruitment policy and recruitment

rules. The regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment.

In view of the above, this Tribunal holds the workman being an employee of contractor employer cannot

claim regularisation and absorption in the service of the bank and that too against non-existence post. This Tribunal

does not find any merit in the reference. Accordingly the reference No. 14 of 2005 is dismissed. Award of dismissal is

passed.

K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2023

का. आ. 1216.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj यूको बैंक 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;

ds iapkV (27/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y- 12011/46/2004- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 19th July, 2023

S.O. 1216.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.27/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

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

[No. L-12011/46/2004- IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 22, 2023/आषाढ़ 31, 1945

2553

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 27 OF 2004

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

UCo Bank.

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of UCo Bank : Sri Pradip Kumar Upadhaya, Manager (Law).

On behalf of the Contractor M/s.Swapan Electrical Works: Absent

On behalf of the Union: Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi Authorised Representative

Dated:15^th June, 2023

AWARD

By Order No L-12011/46/2004 (IR)(B-II) dated 19-07-2004, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

excise of the power conferred under sub section 1(d) and 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has

referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: –

“Whether there is any relationship of employer and employee between the management of UCO Bank and

Mr. Bappa Mondal and Mr. Sadananda Bhattacharya working under contractor M/s. Swapan Electric Works at UCO

Bank, Head Office, Kolkata., If so, whether they are entitled for regularisation of their service in UCO Bank? If not, to

what relief they are entitled to?

The facts that are necessary for determination of the above issue in gist is that UCo Bank has

engaged M/s. Swapan Electric Works, service provider for routine maintenance Air Conditioning Plant at its

International Banking Branch at Red Cross Palace, Calcutta. Therefore, the two contractor engaged the concerned

workmen mentioned in the reference order as A.C Plant Operator/Helper.

It is the claim of the Union/workmen that they have been performing the job of operation and routine

maintenance of the Central Air Conditional Plants and electrical maintenance in the establishment of the Bank for last

18 years. That they have been engaged by the Bank through the contractor in place of regular employee in the post of

Electrician cum Air Conditioning Plant Operator/Helper against the vacancy that had arisen due to retirement,

promotion and transfer of regular staff. The nature of work discharged by them is semi-skilled in nature. The job

which they performed is of perennial in nature and integral part of the bank.

Normal routine or function of the Bank would be jeopardized if the nature of work performed by them is

discharged by a normal contract labours. They are semi-skilled workmen having vast technical experience. That they

have been engaged by the Bank for doing perennial nature of job through sham contractor. That Bank had earlier

absorbed Sri M. Majumder and Sri Parmananda Behera, contractor employees in the post of Clerk and Gardener cum

Farash on the basis of an agreement dated 31-01-1979. That they have also alleged, the contractor whom the Bank

have engaged do not have license as required under section 12 of Contractor Labours (Regulation and Abolition) Act,

1970 (hereinafter called as “CLRA Act”). Similarly, the UCo Bank too is not a registered establishment under section

7 of the CLRA Act. Therefore, the Bank has no authority to engage any contractor or engage any contractor labour to

do its perennial nature of core jobs. Therefore, the union and workmen have prayed for absorption and regularization

of the above two persons as regular employee of UCo Bank in view of the bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966

which provides that Electrician and A.C. Plant Operator/ Helper as semi-skilled workmen and in the subordinate cadre

of the Bank employees.

On the other hand the management of the Bank in its written statement has alleged the schedule of reference

itself describe those two workmen as employees of its contractor/service providers. Such fact ipso facto proves those

workmen were never engaged by the Bank. There exit no relationship of employer and employees between the Bank

and those six workmen.

It has further alleged that the Union which has espoused the dispute on behalf of the contractors’ workmen,

have no authority to raise dispute in respect of employees who are not regular employees of the Bank. It has also

contended that those service providers through whom those employees were engaged in its establishment to do the job

2554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2023/ASHADHA 31, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of operation and maintenance of A.C. Plant has less than twenty employees and as such it was/is not required to obtain

license under section 12 of the CLRA Act.

That no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act, has been issued in respect of the establishment of the

Bank, prohibiting it to engage any contractor laborers. It has also contended that Bank having engaged more than 20

contractor employees at its different establishments, it has duly registered itself under section 7 of the CLRA Act,

1970.

It has also contended, the management of UCo Bank, utilized the service of the two contractor for temporary

jobs to ensure operation and routine maintenance of the bank’s A.C. Plant. The management of the Bank make

payment to the contractor and who in turn make payment to its employees at the applicable rate of minimum wages.

For extra work, additional payment is made on production of Log Book. Those employees are not under the control of

the Bank. There is no sanctioned post for Electrician and Air Conditioner Plant Operator in the Bank. Further without

following the recruitment procedure the contractor workmen cannot be absorbed in the category of regular employees.

Accordingly, the Bank has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

The record shows that contractor employer/service provider has failed to appear and filed its written

statement and as such it has been proceeded exparte.

The Union has declined to adduce oral evidence to substantiate its claim and case as per order sheet dated

18.08.2010. However,13 documents filed by the Union have been marked as Exhibit W-1 to W-13 on formal proof

being dispensed with on 10-04-2007.

The management has examined Sri Tarun Sen, Chief Manager (Engineer) as M.W.1. Three documents have

been marked as ExhibitM-1 to M-4 on formal proof being dispensed with on 10-04-2007.

Representative of the union/workmen has referred to the following decisions in support of their contention

and claim statement;

Mukund Ltd. –vs- Mukund Staff and Officers’ Association. 2004, LAB.I.C. 2791.

Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat –vs- Hind Mazdoor Sabha (1995

SOL Case No.234).

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari

Sanghatana (Maharashtra SRTC) [(2009) 8 SCC 558].

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs Krishna Gopal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016).

Tinku K & Others –Vs- Union of India [WP (C) No.26934 of 2022].

On the other hand the management has referred to the following decisions in support of its case and

contention:-

1. Jiban Krishna Mondal & Ors –vs- State of West Bengal reported in (2015) 12 SCC 74 (para 29).

2.State of Karnataka & Ors. –vs- Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported kin (200^) 4 SCC 1 (para 15, 15 and 17).

3.Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. –vs- Air India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407 (para 83,87 and 89).