5228 GI/2023

(2793)

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. 34]

नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 20—अगस्ट् त 26, 2023, िजनवार/श्रावण 29—भाद्र 4, 1945

No. 34]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 20—AUGUST 26, 2023, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 29—BHADRA 4, 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, 17 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1319.—राष् रीय आवास बैंक अजिजनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) की िारा (6) की उप-िारा (1) के

खंड (च) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन् द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, डॉ. िे रजविंकर, सजचव, आवासन जवभाग,

कनााटक सरकार के स्ट्थान पर श्रीमती साररका प्रिान, सजचव, जसदिम आवास एवं जवकास बोडा को अजिसूचना की तारीख

से तीन वर्ा की अवजि के जलए या अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, राष् रीय आवास बैंक के जनिेिक मंडल में जनिेिक के

पि पर जनयुि करती िै।

[फा. सं. 24/17/2010-आईएफ.II]

जिवानी गोयल, सिायक जनिेिक

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-13092023-248630

CG-DL-W-13092023-248630

2794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2023

S. O. 1319.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Sarika Pradhan, Secretary,

Sikkim Housing & Development Board as Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank, vice Dr. J

Ravishankar, Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Karnataka, for a period of 3 years from the date of

notification or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 24/17/2010-IF.II]

SHIVANI GOEL, Assistant Director

उपभोिा मामले, खाद्य और सावािजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय

(खाद्य और सावािजनक जवतरण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 28 िुलाई, 2023

का.आ. 1320.—केन्द्रीय सरकार रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में उपभोिा मामले, खाद्य और सावािजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय (खाद्य और सावािजनक

जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाालयों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित या उससे अजिक कमाचारीवृन्ि ने

जिन्िी का प्रवीणता/कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को रािपत्र में अजिसूजचत करती िै:-

क्र. सं.

अजिसूजचत दकए िाने वाले केन्द्रीय भंडारण जनगम के कायाालयों का नाम

फाजिल् का

नाभा बेस जडपो

चनालो

भठठंडा

पठानकोट बेस जडपो

सरहिंि

मानसा

मोगा-2

अमृतसर-1

अबोिर

मोिाली

मोगा-1

गढ़िंकर

मुक् तसर

मंडी गोजबन् िगढ़

नाभा (सामान् य)

गुरिासपुर

चंडीगढ़

[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-जिन्िी(321924)]

रािेन्द्र कुमार, संयुि सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2795

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2023

S. O. 1320.—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 offices under the administrative control of

the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food & Public Distribution), whereof

80% or more staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

Sl. No.

Offices of Central Warehousing Corporation to be notified

Fazilka

Nabha BD

Chanalo

Bathinda

Pathankot B.D.

Sirhind

Mansa

Moga-2

Amritsar-1

Abohar

Mohali

Moga-1

Garhshankar

Muktsar

Mandi Gobindgarh

Nabha (General)

Gurdaspur

Chandigarh

[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi(321924)]

RAJENDER KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1321.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, कमाचारी राज्य बीमा अजिजनयम,1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क के

साथ परठत िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, बीएसईएसयमुना पावर जलजमटेड के कारखानों और

स्ट्थापनाओं के जनयजमत कमाचाररयों को उि अजिजनयम के प्रवतान से छूट प्रिान करती िै। यि छूट रािपत्र में इस

vf/klwpuk के प्रकाजितgksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी jgsxhA

उि छूट जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन िै; अथाात्:-

(1)

कारखाना और स्ट्थापना छूट प्राप्त कमाचाररयों के नाम और पिनाम जवजनर्िाष्ट करते हुए, कमाचाररयों का एक

रजिस्ट्टर रखेगी;

(2)

कमाचारी उि अजिजनयम के अिीन ऐसी प्रसुजविाएं प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको पाने के जलए वे इस अजिसूचना

द्वारा िी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त िोने की तारीख से पूवा 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 पश्चात उि अवजि किा गया िै) प्रवतान के अध्यिीन था ऐसी जववरजणयां, ऐसे

प्रारूप में और ऐसी जवजिजष्टयों से युि िोगी िो कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 के अिीन

उसे उि अवजि की बाबत िेनी अपेजक्षत िोती थीं;

(5)

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

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

2796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

अंतर्वाष्ट जवजिष्टयों को सत्याजपत करने; या

(ii) यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी राज्य बीमा (सािारण) जवजनयम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेजक्षत

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

(iii) यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक कमाचारी, जनयोिक द्वारा दिये गए उन प्रसुजविाओं को, जिसके

फलस्ट्वरूप इस अजिसूचना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु रूप में पाने का िकिार िै

या निीं; या

(iv) यि अजभजनश्चयन के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िब उि कारखाने और स्ट्थापन के संबंि में

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

काया करने के जलए सिि िोगा—

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

के प्रयोिन के जलए आवश्यक समझता िै ; या

(ख) ऐसे प्रिान या आसन्न जनयोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य

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

कार्माक 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 आसन्न जनयोिक की, उसके अजभकताा या सेवक की, या ऐसे दकसी व्यजि को, िो ऐसे

कारखाने, स्ट्थापना, कायाालय या अन्य पररसर में पाया िाए, यि जवश्वास करने का युजियुि

कारण िै दक वि कमाचारी िै, परीक्षा करना; या

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

अन्य िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना; या

(ङ) यथाजस्ट्थजत अन्य िजियों का प्रयोग करना िो जवजनर्िाष्ट दकए िाएँ ।

जवजनवेि या जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रित्त छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नए प्रजतष्ठान को छूट के जलए

समुजचत सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।

[सं. एस-38016/48/2018-एस.एस-I]

िीरेन्द्र मोिन खरे, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2023

S.O. 1321.—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 M/s BSES Yamuna Power Limited 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;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2797

(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 furnish 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 Social Security Officer or

other official and allow him to examine the accounts, books and other documents

relating to the employment of persons and payment of wages or to furnish to him

such information as he may consider necessary; or

immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory,

establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said Social Security

Officer or other official has reasonable cause to believe to be or 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 the new

entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.

[No. S-38016/48/2018-SS-I]

DHEERENDRA MOHAN KHARE, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1322.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

भारत पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, कोलकाता के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-03/2018) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

था।

[सं. एल-30011/49/2017-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kolkata and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-30011/49/2017-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 03 OF 2018

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s BPCL, Kolkata

AND

Their Workmen/ Union

Appearance:

On behalf of Management: M/s BPCL, Kolkata

: Present

On behalf of the Workmen/ Union

: Present

Dated 23^rd February, 2023

AWARD

Both sides are present through their respective Ld. Counsels.

Today has been fixed for adducing evidence by the Union, but union has come with a verified application

stating the concerned two dismissed workmen are not interested to pursue with the present reference case. Therefore,

it has prayed for passing necessary order or an appropriate award. Let the petition be taken on record.

The present reference case has seen referred by the Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 30011/49/2017-

IR(M) dated 03.10.2017 for determination “Whether the action of the Management is justified in denying the Post-

Retirement Medical Benefit to two dismissed employees (workmen) viz. Sri Tapas Bhattacharyya and Sri Ram

Chandra Bishoyi? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

Since the union which has espoused the cases of the above two workmen is not interested to proceed further

with the hearing of the reference and as such, no dispute award is hereby passed.

Accordingly, Reference No. 03 of 2018 is disposed of without cost.

Send copy of this order/ no dispute award to the Ministry for doing needful.

Supply copy to the parties as per rule.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1323.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, िजल्िआ ररफाइनरी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-25/2007) को

िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.08.2023 को

प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/49/2007-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S. O. 1323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Indian

Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia Refinery and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-30011/49/2007-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2799

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 25 OF 2007

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia Refinery

AND

Their Workmen/ Union

Appearance:

On behalf of Management: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Haldia Refinery : Present

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

Dated 13^th March, 2023

AWARD

The Management is present through its Ld. Counsel.

Summon/ notice of appearance issued to the Union in the address given in the Order of reference has returned

undelivered with postal endorsement insufficient address as per track report.

The Record reveals, the union has been conducting the case and lastly the case was fixed for further cross-

examination of Union’s witness Ashok Kumar Maity since 08.12.2011. The evidence from the side of Union has been

closed vide Order Dated 04.04.2019, when union has failed to produce the W.W No. 1 Ashok Kumar Maity for his

cross-examination and has stopped appearing. Thus, case was fixed for evidence from the side of Management since

12.06.2019.

Unfortunately, till date the Management too has failed to adduce evidence.

Therefore, this Tribunal decides to dispose of the present Reference Case No. 25/07 on the basis of materials

available on record.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-30011/49/2007 IR(M) dated 25.09.07 has

referred the following issue for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia Refinery in closing down

and shifting the LPG Bottling plant resulting in consequential changes of service condition of the concerned workmen

is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

The union in its claim application has alleged that Management unilaterally decided to shift LPG Bottling

Plant from Haldia Refinery which has been running for more than thirty years and in its place decided to establish B.G

gantry for Naphtha unloading thereby affecting the service conditions of those workmen working for bottling plant.

Contractor’s workmen too were withdrawn after the plant was closed on & from 1^st March, 2007. That due to

redeployment of the workmen of LPG Bottling Plant to different departments of Haldia Refineries it grossly changed

in their service conditions, they have been posted in those departments where risk of life is high. That they have lost

their seniority. Thus, it has prayed for restoration of operation of L.P.G Bottling Plant and not to discriminate the

workmen of bottling plant at the time of promotion and not to change their service conditions.

On the other hand, the management has contended in its w/s the union in question has no locus standi to

challenge the decision of the Management as it is not a recognized union. The recognized union which represent the

majority of the workmen of Haldia Bottling Plant has not raised any dispute as it has accepted the redeployment of the

workmen of Bottling Plant to different departments of Haldia Refineries as they have been suitably redeployed in

other section/ departments. At the Haldia Refinery itself with similar benefits and conditions of service as per rules.

The shifting of plant is purely a managerial decision and which was necessitated for Corporation’s

commercial exigencies and when this is redeployment of the workmen of the plant in different section and

departments at the Haldia Refinery itself with similar benefits and service conditions cannot be termed as change of

conditions of service.

That out of 49 contractor’s workmen, 31 have been deployed at Hydro Crocker Project under different

contractors and 18 have been paid one time lump-sum compensation on terms of settlement dated 13.04.2007.

2800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bottling Plant had to be dismantled to install Hydro Crocker Unit at Haldia, in order to meet the future fuel

specification of petrol and diesel as per auto fuel quality norms of the Govt. of India and to improve Refinery

profitability. Relocation of bottling plant is not the close of the plant. Thus, it has prayed for dismissal of the

Reference Case.

Gone through the exhibited documents and from where it appears the LPG Bottling Plant at Haldia Refinery

has already been relocated elsewhere i.e. outside Haldia and at its site new Hydro Crocker Plant has been established.

From Ext. W-6 it appears that there was 39 permanent workmen working at Bottling Plant. On the shifting of

the plant outside Haldia, they have been redeployed within Haldia Refinery, but in different sections and departments

under the same management, without affecting their seniority in the same pay scale and all prerequisite facilities to

which they were entitled as employee of bottling plant.

Therefore, this tribunal does not find any change in the service condition of those permanent employee of

LPG Bottling Plant on their redeployment in different sections and departments of the same management.

The documents filed by the Management shows that out of 49 contractor’s employee, it has deployed 31 of

them to different sections under different contractors and service provider M/s S.B Engineering had retrenched 18

workmen, but after providing them retrenchment compensation as admissible under I.D. Act, 1947 including ex-gratia

payment.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the dispute raised by the Union.

Consequently, the Reference stands dismissed.

Accordingly, dismissal award is hereby passed.

Reference Case No. 25/07 is dismissed without cost.

Send copy of this Award to the Ministry for doing needful.

Supply copy to the parties as per rule.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1324.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत

पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, एलपीिी प्लांट कोलकाता के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-24/2020) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/23/2020-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG Plant, Kolkata and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-30011/23/2020-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO.24 OF 2020

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG Plant

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance:

On behalf of Management: M/s Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd., LPG Plant

: Present

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2801

On behalf of the Workmen

: None.

Dated 25^th January, 2023

AWARD

The Management represented by its lawyer.

Today too the Union has failed to appear like on the previous date inspite of having knowledge about the

pendency of present reference case, referred by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour at its initiative or having

espoused the dispute against the Management before different Govt. Authorities.

Be that as it may, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide its office Order No. L-30011/23/2020 (IR-M)

dated 14.12.2020 has referred the following issue for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of BPCL, Raigunj Territory (LPG) in introducing the new machine without

issuing notice under Section 9A of the ID Act is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

Since the union after raising the dispute has decided not to pursue the case before the Tribunal for

adjudication by keeping itself absent or not putting appearance, it can be said that union is no more interested to

proceed further with the issue under reference.

Therefore, no dispute award is passed and Reference Case No. 24 of 2020 is disposed of.

Send copy to the Ministry

Supply copy to the parties.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1325.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

स्ट्वाजत एयरपोटा सपोटा सर्वासेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-61/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-11012/2/2014-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Swati Airport Support Services Pvt. Ltd. and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-11012/2/2014-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

RtEF. NO. 61 OF 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Swati Airport Support Services Pvt. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen/Union

Appearance :

2802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On behalf of Management: Swati Airport Support

Services Pvt. Ltd.

: Present

Contractor Employer

: Absent

On behalf of the Workmen/Union : Absent

Dated 24^th March, 2023

AWARD

The Management of Airport Authority of India is present. None appears from the side of the Contractor

Employer and Union inspite of due service of notice upon Union as per tack report.

Record shows that since 11.02.2016 the union which has espoused the present dispute and has filed claim

statement has not been taking any step or perusing with the the hearing of the case.

So, it can be assumed the union is no more interested with the dispute or issue “Whether the action of the

Management of Swati Airport Support Services Pvt. Ltd. is justified in terminating the service of Sri Sankar Gupta

w.e.f. 16.07.2013 is legal and /or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The union in its claim statement has alleged Mr. Shankar Kumar Gupta was engaged as Aero Bridge

Operator on 15.02.2013 and prior to that, he was engage in different capacities since 2004 within the ambit of

Principal Employer under different contractors.

That for no reason his service was terminated on 16.07.2013 without following the statutory obligation. Thus,

union has prayed for his reinstatement with back wages.

The Airport Authority of India in its written statement has alleged since there exist no relationship of

employer and employee between it and the concerned workmen, the present reference case is not maintainable against

it and prayed for dismissal.

In the record I do not find such materials to prove the claim made by the union that concerned workman was

working under different contractors engaged by A.A.I since 2004 or that he was retrenched from the service without

following and complying the procedure under provision laid down in I.D. Act.

Therefore, No Dispute Award is passed and Reference Case No. 61 of 2014 is disposed of.

Send copy to the Ministry for doing needful.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1326.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत

पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, कोलकाता के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-01/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[सं. एल-30011/51/2018-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kolkata and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-30011/51/2018-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2803

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 01 OF 2019

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s BPCL & Others

AND

Their Workmen/ Union

Appearance :

On behalf of Management

On behalf of the Workmen

: Ld. Adv. Mr. M.S. Dutta

Dated 14^th March, 2023

AWARD

Both the workmen Md. Shakil and Sri Sankalpo Baran Hari are found present in the Tribunal along with their

Ld. Counsel M.S. Dutta.

Sri Dipak Kr. Bhattacharya, the General Secretary, B.P.C.L Employee Union who has espoused this present

dispute files a verified petition stating both the workmen are not interested to proceed with the present case.

Therefore, he has prayed for passing necessary order.

The workman Sri Sankalpo Baran Hari files Xerox copy of his Aadhaar Card to prove his identity and duly

signed by him and his lawyer on record. Let it be taken on record while Md. Sakil submits that he has not brought any

of his identity issued by the Govt. to prove his identity, but Ld. Lawyer on record identifies himself.

The Govt. of India, through Labour Ministry and vide Order No. L-30011/51/2018-IR (M) dated 07.01.2019

has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether redressal accorded by the Executive Director Aviation, BPCL, Kolkata in the appeal made by the workmen

viz., Sri Md. Shakil and Sri Sankalpa Baran Hari is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled

to?”

Since the Union and workmen are not interested to proceed with the dispute and who have prayed for

disposal of the case for non-presence and as such their prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, no dispute award is passed and Reference Case No. 1 of 2019 is disposed of.

All pending applications are disposed of.

Send copy to the Ministry for dong needful.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1327.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-08/2003) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[सं. एल-17011/25/2002-आईआर(बी-II)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life

Insurance Corporation of India and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-17011/25/2002-IR(B-II)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 08 OF 2003

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

LIC of India

AND

Their Workmen/Union

Appearance:

On behalf of Management: Mr. Avishek Guha, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Union/Workman: Absent

Dated: 8th June, 2023

AWARD

By order No. L-17011/25/2002/IR(B-II) dated 31-01-2003, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, has

referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in increasing the working hours on Saturday to eight

hours to the Watchman, Liftman and Driver etc. w.e.f. 15-03-2002 without following the procedure under

section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act is justified or not? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are

entitled to ?”

The Union which has espoused the above dispute in its claim statement has alleged that it is one of

Registered Trade Union and recognised by the management of LIC of India. The management of Eastern Zonal Office

by issuing letter dated 29-02-2002 informed the 43 workmen names mentioned in the claim statement and working in

the capacity of Liftman, Watchman and Driver about change in their duty hours on Saturday from four hours to eight

hours would be of eight hours and such change would take place from 15-03-2002.

It is the contention of the Union that appointment letters of those workmen specifically provide that working

hours on Saturday would be four hours. Hat letters dated 29-02-2002 and 07-03-2002 were totally silent about

payment of extra remuneration for working additional extra four hours on Saturday. The Union raised objection

against such sudden change in the duty hours before the management but the management did not pay any heed to

their representation for which they had to raise an industrial dispute before the authority concerned, but reconciliation

failed. Hence this reference.

The management in its written statement has alleged that duty hours of driver, watchman and liftman was

fixed as per establishment manual. The different division had fixed different duty hours in the appointment letters of

watchman, liftman and drivers contrary to the codified hours of duty in the establishment manual. The service

condition of the staff of LIC is not governed by the provision of West Bengal Shop and Establishment Act. The

overtime is allowed only for those work which is necessary to dispose of the urgent matter of non-routine nature. The

duty hours of those staff belonging to the category of Liftman, Watchman and driver have been changed from

four/four and half hours to eight hours as per establishment manual.

That as per clause 55 of LIC (Staff Regulation) 1960 Corporation may sanction overtime payment to its

employees belonging to the class III and class IV who are required to work on Saturday or holidays or to put in extra

hours on week days in connection with corporation work subject to the provision of local enactment.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2805

Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

The Union in order to prove its case has examined Sri Shyamal Kumar Chakraborty, Watchman, as WW-1,

Sri Swapan Kumar Bedajna, a member of the Union and High grade Assistant of Insurance Company as WW-2, Sri

Haradhan Majumder, Watchman as WW-3 and Sri Khokon Singh, Driver as WW-4.

From the side of the said Union 14 documents have been produced and which have marked as Exhibit-W-1

to W-14.

From the side of the management Smt. Ranjita Swain, Administrative Officer was examined as M.W.1, Sri

Dipak Kumar Ghosh, Secretary, Office Service Department of Eastern Zonal Office as MW-2, Sri Anup Kumar

Ghosh, Assistant Secretary, Office Service Department of Eastern Zonal Office as MW-3, but management has failed

to produce Sri Subrata Bose whose evidence-in-chief on affidavit was filed. Thus incomplete evidence of Sri Subrata

Bose is hereby declared expunged. From the side of the management five documents have been produced and which

have been marked as Exhbiit-M-1 to M-3/2.

It is undisputed fact, earlier the office of LIC used to have full five working days from Monday to Friday and

half working day on Saturday. Therefore, appointment letters of those 43 workmen in the category of Liftman,

Watchman and Driver, show that their daily working hours was eight hours and four hours on Saturday. Further, their

appointment letters contain a clause apart from the limit prescribed their actual working hours will be subject to

change from time to time as per the requirement of the office. If more than one shift is worked, the workman is liable

to transfer to one shift to another. Some of the appointment letters contain the following condition :-

“Subject to the provision of the local Shop and Establishment Act daily working hours will be eight hours

excluding lunch interval on full working days and four/four and half hours on half day. Subject to this limit, the actual

working hours will be prescribed by the office from to time.”

The impugned letter dated 27-02-2002 issued by the Regional Manager of Eastern Region, LIC of India, the

root cause of the present dispute shows the Management had informed the concerned workmen about change in the

working hours on Saturday and the reason for the change. It was written in the dispute letter dated 27-02-2002, that

assuming Shop and Establishment Act of West Bengal was applicable to the Building Maintenance Staff of the LIC of

Indi, at Zonal Office, Kolkata, the working hours was fixed less than eight hours on working Saturday. Since the State

Act is not applicable to LIC and as such the duty hours of Building Maintenance Staff on working Saturday was

increased from four and half hours to eight hours w.e.f. 15-03-2002.

Perused those exhibited appointment letters produced from the side of the Union. Indeed, those appointment

letters contains a clause with regard to the working hours and which shows that working hours for those Building

Maintenance Staff i.e. Liftman, Watchman and also that of Driver, their working hours has been prescribed

as follows :-

“8 hours during week days from Monday to Friday and four or four and half hours on Saturday and such

working hours is subject to local Shop and Establishment Act. That their working hours limit is also subject to change

as and when prescribed by the office from time to time.”

By issuing letter dated 27-02-2002 the management as disclosed to those liftman, watchman and Driver, that

Shop and Establishment Act, West Bengal is not applicable to LIC of India.

It is a matter of common knowledge that LIC is a Govt. of India Undertaking and is governed by the LIC

Act, 1956 and which is a Central Govt. undertaking and the State Govt. has no control over the affairs of LIC and its

employees. Therefore, this Tribunal is of view mentioned of application of Shop and Establishment Act of West

Bengal in the appointment letters of those 43 workmen is unwarranted. Therefore, the union cannot take advantage of

such unwarranted, improper clause contained in the appointment letters of those employees.

That apart, it is a matter of common knowledge in the earlier days LIC used to function six days a week like

nationalised banking institution i.e. from Monday to Friday as full day and Saturday half day. Subsequently, there was

a change in the working days in LIC like nationalised banking sector whereby Second and fourth Saturday of every

month was declared holidays/ non-operational days while first, third and fifth Saturdays were made working

days/operational days. At present the working days of LIC is five days a week.

A question may arises under such changed circumstances with regard to working days. Whether the LIC can

reduce the salary of the liftmen, watchmen and driver merely the working days from six days a week has been brought

down in five days a week? The answer is “NO” as it will create a chaos in the establishment of LIC.

Further, a question may arises when LIC started functioning on first, third and fifty Saturday as full working

days by declaring second and fourth Saturday as holidays, then staff who falls under the category of Bing

Maintenance and Drivers can deny working on working Saturday a full working day, merely their appointment letters

contain four hour working hours on Saturday. The answer is simply no as they being regular staff of LIC, their nature

of job demands it is their bounden duty to keep the lift operation, office premises is opened before the start of working

2806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

hours and to close after the office hours during full working days including Saturday, which was made full working

days from half day after declaring 2^nd and 4^th Saturday of a month holidays. Equally drivers need to attend their duty

on working days and remain during working hours and they cannot say since their appointment letters provides four

hour duty on full working Saturday by putting the admiration in lurch.

That apart, the management by issuing notice those 43 workmen individually on 27-02-2002 and 07-03-2002

have informed them in advance about the change in working hours and date from when it would effective i.e. 15-03-

2002.

As per section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, the management need to give prior notice of changes it

intend to bring on working days and working hours to the concerned workmen going to be effected by changes and

can give effect to changes within 21 days of giving of notice. In the present case there appears due compliance of

provision of Section 9A of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the management.

Further, this tribunal is of view, the proposal of changes effected by management to be sound, legal and valid

as one cannot expect liftmen shutting lifts after 2 p.m., watchman closing the office before the working hours or

Driver leaving the office during office hour on full working Saturday, when other regular office staff and managerial

staff would be discharging their duty for eight hours and when the office is fully functioning merely their appointment

letters speak of four hours duty on Saturday. There cannot be two types of working hours on full working day on

Saturday in the same office and when the works of liftmen, watchmen and drivers have direct link with duty hours of

office staff, managerial staff and business hours of Insurance Office. More so, the management has specially

mentioned in their appointment letters its right to bring changes in the limit of their working hours from time to time.

Therefore, the management of LIC was justified in bringing changes in the working hours of its staff who falls in the

category of the liftmen, watchmen and Drivers.

Further, with the several changes that have been effected during long pendency of this case for last two

decades, with regard to working days and working hours in LIC office i.e. from Six Days a week i.e. full five working

days from Monday to Friday and Saturday as half day to 1^st, 3^rd and 5^th Saturday of a month as full working days and

2^nd and 4^th Saturdays of a month as holidays and now Five days a week as working days and weekend i.e. Saturday

and Sunday as Holidays, the dispute raised by union at this stage has become redundant and infructuous and this

Tribunal does not find any merit in the dispute. Accordingly, the Reference case no.08 of 2003 is dismissed and

Award of dismissal is passed.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1328.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-18/2014) को िैसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17011/6/2013-आईआर(एम)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life

Insurance Corporation of India and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-17011/6/2013-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2807

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 18 OF 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen/Union

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management: Authorised Representative

On behalf of the Workmen/Union : Authorised Representative.

Dated: 24th July, 2023

AWARD

By Order No. L`-17011/6/2013 (IR-M) dated 19-02-2014, Central Govt., Ministry of Labour in exercise of

power conferred by section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zonal Office,

Hindustan Building, 4, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata -700 072 for not granting recess hours to the Cashier from 13-

15 hrs. To 14-00 hrs., as granted to all categories of the workmen, as demanded by the Union is legal and/or

justified? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

That the facts giving rise to this dispute in brief are that those staff who discharge the duty of Cashier in Life

Insurance Corporation of India office, are deprived of lunch break or recess hours, which is otherwise extended to all

the employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India and who are entitled to take lunch break and recess hours in

between 13-15 hrs. to 14-00 hrs. Such discriminatory attitude of the management is inhuman labour practice,

insatiable or exploitation and has caused gross injustice to the Cashiers. The management has adopted a step brotherly

treatment towards the Cashiers without being supported by any circular.

The other financial institutions like Bank, Post Office etc. follow uniform recess hours for their entire staff

including their Cashiers after three hours of duty. That forcing the Cashier of LIC of Eastern Zone to work at a stretch

from 10 hrs. to 15 hrs., continuously without any lunch break, just to maintain continuity of work in the cash counter

in the interest of customers is inhuman and which may have adverse effect on their health also. Thus by espousing the

present dispute the union has demanded that there should be uniform lunch break or recess hours to the Cashier also

like it is enjoyed by the other member staff of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. They have demanded that

Cashier may be allowed a lunch break or recess hours in between 13-15 hrs. to 14-00 hrs. That the management may

be directed to adequately compensate the Cashiers for denying them lunch break in between 13-15 hrs. to 14-00 hrs.

from the date the present dispute has been raised.

On the other hand the management in its written statement has alleged that Cashiers are allowed lunch break

or recess after cash hours i.e. after 3 p.m. The recess hours is allowed for 45 minutes subject to adjustment basis on

actual office hours. Cashiers are selected for particular branch/branches on being fully aware of the nature of job and

for which special allowance is paid. The Cash Counter of Life Insurance Corporation of India is kept open during

regular normal lunch hours to cater those customers who come to the Insurance Office to pay premiums during normal

lunch break. Therefore, the management has prayed for dismissal of the claim of the Union.

The Union in order to prove its case has examined Sri Biplab Talukdar, a Cashier of Life Insurance

Corporation of India as W.W. No.1 and Sri Biswanath Tripathi, another Cashier as W.W. No.2. However, no

document whatsoever has been produced from the side of the Union.

On the other hand, the Management has examined Sri Nirmal Alexander Karkata as M.W. No.1 and Sri

Pratik Chatterjee as M.W. No. 2. From the side of the management following documents have been produced and

exhibited:-

Circular dated 29-09-2011 – Exhibit-A.

Letter dated 05-04-2013 – Exhibit-B.

Application of Cashier Sri Biplab Talukdar (W.W. No.1) dated 19-12-1994 – Exhibit-C.

2808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Letter of conversion from the Assistant to Cashier of Sri Biswanath Tripathi, (W.W.No.2) dated 01-

08-2001- Exhibit-D.

Gone through the written argument submitted by the Ld. Counsel for both sides, both oral and

documentary evidence which have come on record.

It is undisputed fact that the lunch break or recess hours of the Cashiers of Life Insurance Corporation of

India was not same like that of the other member staff of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The other member

staff of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at the relevant time used to enjoy lunch break/recess in between 13-15

hrs. to 14-00 hrs., but Cashiers were not allowed to enjoy the said recess hours. Cashiers were entitled to recess only

after the cash hour was over. The working hours of the cashiers at the cash counters was from 10-00 a.m. to

03-00 p.m.

From Exhibit-A, it appears that Chief of Finance and Accounts Department, Central Office, Mumbai by

issuing a circular dated 29-09-2011, had directed all the offices of LIC to see that in case customers are found standing

in queue at the hour of closing of the cash counter gate at 3-00 p.m. the office cannot return those customers who are

standing in queue, the cashier is bound to accept the deposit for which they may have to work for extra-time.

Further, Ext.M-B a letter dated 05-04-2013 addressed to ALC (central), Kolkata by Executive Director

(Personal), Central Office, Mumbai, shows the Labour Commissioner was informed that cash hours in LICI during

weekdays to be for 5 hours a day and on Saturday it is 3 hours, but subject to local conditions and convenience of

policy holders and further it has to be decided by Zonal Manager. Further, it has been stated that allowing lunch break

between cash hours to cashiers like other employees of LIC is not found advisable as it makes inconvenient for the

office going public who wish to deposit/remit the premium during their lunch break. Therefore, cashiers of LIC can

enjoy lunch break immediate after cash hour is over and within normal working hours.

However, M.W. No.1 in his evidence has stated since 15-05-2021 uniform recess hours is adopted in all the

offices of Life Insurance Corporation of India, for all the employees including Cashiers. Now, the recess hours is from

01-30 p.m. to 02-00 p.m. i.e. for half an hour and consequently the working hours of cash counter has been extended

from 10-00 a.m. to 04-15 p.m. in place of earlier cash counter hours from 10-00 a.m. to 03-00 p.m.

It is also seen from the evidence of both the management witnesses, the cashier are selected amongst the

eligible employees on their willingness applications and also based on certain other factors and for which they

were/are paid special allowance.

Both the witnesses of the union who are two Cashiers of Life Insurance Corporation of India, too in their

evidences stated that lunch break hours was fixed in Life Insurance Corporation of India for 45 minutes i.e. from

01-15 p.m. to 02-00 p.m. uniformly for all classes of the employees right from Sweeper to Chairman, but for Cashiers

they can take break only after cash hours i.e. after 3 p.m.

So, it appears the management has admitted that no regular lunch break which is otherwise enjoyed by the

other staff of Life Insurance Corporation of India was extended to the Cashiers, in the interest of those office going

customers who could come to the branch to deposit/remit their premiums and for other related transactions only

during their normal lunch break time and to prevent harassment to the customers. Therefore, the cashiers go for lunch

on staggered basis.

Therefore, the only question that requires determination in the present reference is whether the Cashiers

were discriminated for not extending recess hours during 13-15 hrs. to 14-00 hrs as enjoyed by their colleagues or

superior officers and subordinate staff working in the same establishment?

There are other institutions like LIC, such as Bank, Post Office etc. There are several Revenue generating

departments in Government offices where cash transactions from public are dealt with. In those departments uniform

recess hours or lunch break is maintained as a general rule and no two different recess hours being maintained within

the same establishment especially in respect of employees working in the cash counters. In some of those institutions/

establishment, it is seen transaction in one or two of the cash counters being closed keeping the other cash counters

open to cater the customers coming to those institutions/establishment during recess hours and some of those financial

institutions suspending the work in cash counters completely during recess hours. So, to this tribunal it appears to

direct a cashier of LIC to work uninterruptedly without any break and continuously at a stretch for five hours just for

the sake of some office going customers to be inhuman and unjust. Such rigorous duty hours may tell upon their both

mental and physical health.

It is true the lunch break may vary from place to place or to establishment to establishment but all the

employees working in those establishments are entitled to lunch break at least working for 03-00 to-03-30 hours in the

first half of the day, but in the present case it is seen the Cashiers of Life Insurance Corpn. Ltd. were made to work

continuously for five hours without any break from 10 a.m. to 03-00 p.m. whereas their other colleagues, senior

officers and staff subordinate to them enjoyed uniform lunch break after working for three and half hours at the

relevant period to be unjust and discriminatory. The union is justified in raising the present dispute.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2809

However, it has been admitted by both sides that during the pendency of the present reference all the

employees of LICI irrespective of their post and designation have been enjoying uniform lunch break or recess hours

and the dispute raised by the union regarding disparity in recess hours for cashiers and rest of the employees of LICI

under Eastern Zone has been settled by the Management by issuing revised working hours for the employees of LICI

under Eastern Zone on 4th May 2021 and copy of which has been filed by the Management of LICI along with its

written notes of argument.

Therefore, in view of the letter no. EZO/P&R/2021-22/Working Hours dated May 4 2021, the present

reference is disposed of. Accordingly, Reference No.18 of 2014 is disposed of and Award is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1329.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड, कोलकाता के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-30/2022) को िैसा दक

था।

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2023-आईआर(एम)-51]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Indian

Oil Corporation Limited, Kolkata and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-51]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 30 OF 2022

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Indian Oil Corporation

AND

Their Workman

Appearance :

On behalf of Management :

Mr. Sushil Karmakar, Advocate

On behalf of the Workman :

Dated: 12^th June, 2023

AWARD

By Order No ID/Misc./8/(18)/2022-E.I/B.II dated 20-06-2022, the Deputy Chief Commissioner (central),

Kolkata has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: –

2810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the termination/disengagement of the service of Sh. Babulal Halder, Ex-Senior Operator (F)

w.e.f.12-09-2008 by the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Eastern Region,

Kolkata is legal, just and proper? If not, to what relief the concerned workman Sh. Babulal Halder is entitled to?”

Indian Oil Corpn. is represented by its Ld. Counsel Mr. Sushil Karmakar.

The workman Sri Babulal Halder is present through his Lawyer, but I do not find power in favour of the

ld.Lawyer in the record. The claim statement contained Vokalatnama which bears the signature of Sri Babulal Halder

but it does not bear any signature or name of the Lawyer who is conducting the case on his behalf.

One Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate has fled written objection against the petition of the management dated 06-

03-2023, but I do not find any power being executed by the workman in his favour.

Be that as it may, today has been fixed for hearing the application dated 06-03-2023 filed by the management

challenging the maintainability of the present reference case. It has been alleged in the said petition that the workman

Sri Babulal Halder was terminated from the service on 12-09-2008 on the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the

domestic enquiry held against him on the charge of furnishing false school certificate at the time of his

employment/recruitment.

Said Babulal Halder challenging such order of dismissal or termination of his service dated 12-09-2008, had

filed a case under section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, before this Tribunal in the year 2018 and which was

registered as CGIT-9/2018. That when he found that his case was barred by limitation in view of the provisions of

section 2A(3) of the I.D. Act, he had filed an application for withdrawal of the case and which was duly allowed by

the predecessor of this Tribunal on 12-07-2019. Then he filed WPA-7524 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court and

which too he had withdrawn with a view to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.

Accordingly, said writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution and liberty was given to the writ petitioner to

approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances and such order was passed on 20-06-2022.

That Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Kolkata referred the dispute on 20.06.22 to this Tribunal the time

barred dispute for adjudication. Therefore, ld. counsel for the Management has prayed for dismissal of the reference.

He in support of his contention has referred to Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank –vs- Neelaam,

2005 II CLR 45 and Smt. Swapna Adhikari (Smt) –vs- State of West Bengal & Ors., 2014 III CLR-352.

On the other hand it has been contended that order of withdrawal of previously filed case u/s 2A of the

I.D.Act and writ petition will not operate as resjudicata as the dispute was not disposed of on merit. Since the Govt.

has referred the dispute u/s10 (1) (d) and 2A of the I.D.Act, the same is not subjected to law of limitation.

On perusal of record, it appears that Sri Babulal Halder was terminated from the service on securing job in I.

B.P. which was later merged with Indian Oil Corporation on the basis of the forged educational certificate and on the

basis of the report of domestic enquiry held against him on and from 12-09-2008.

Challenging such termination order dated 12.09.2008, he has filed a case u/s 2A of the I.D.Act, being CGIT

No.9 of 2018. In view of provision of sections 2A(2) and 2A(3) of the I.D.Act, a workman who has been discharged,

dismissed, retrenched or otherwise terminated from service can file an application directly to the labour court or

tribunal challenging the order of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment and termination before expiry of three years from

the date of passing of order of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination. So, it appears he filed the application

u/s2A of the Act, almost ten years of his termination. Realising that his cause is barred by limitation, he withdrew the

case on 12.07.2019. Then, he moved the High Court of Calcutta and filed WPA-7524 of 2022 and that too he

withdrew on 20-06-2022 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, he managed to obtain an order to

approach the appropriate forum for remedy. Thus, it appears the workman has misused the process of the Court and

the Tribunal.

It further appears, DLC, Kolkata referred the dispute in question for determination by this Tribunal, the day

the writ petition was withdrawn by the workman on 20-06-2022. It shows that workman had already raised an

industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner for reconciliation and such matter was pending before the Labour

Commissioner when he filed the writ petition and he appears to have suppressed such fact before the Hon’ble Writ

Court as Writ Court while dismissing the writ for non-prosecution has given him liberty to move appropriate forum

for remedy.

Further, it is very interesting to note DLC, Kolkata, has failed to annex delegation of power u/s 39 of the Act,

in its favour to refer the dispute directly to this Tribunal i.e. almost 14 years after his termination.

Prima facie it appears the dispute raised by the workman is barred by limitation in view of section 2A (3) of

the I.D. Act.

That apart Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank –vs-

Neelaam, 2005 II CLR 45, has been pleased to hold “the aim and object of the industrial dispute may be to impart

social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2811

automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable

to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance

sub silentio.”

The Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in Smt. Swapna Adhikari –vs- State of West Bengal & Ors., 2014 III

CLR-352 has been pleased to hold that “the legislature, however, has introduced sub-section (3) so that the case

falling under section 2A, the employee approached within a stipulated time. The said sub-section (3) prescribed the

time within which an application for adjudication of disputes is required to be filed before the Tribunal/Labour Court.

This is the second application contemplated under the amended section. The first application is to be made before the

conciliation officer. The workman is first required to approach the conciliation officer. This also appears to be the

procedure under Rule 12A of the West Bengal Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 vide Notification No.1806-ir Dated

November 12 ,1993. However, the tribunal under no circumstances can accept and decide any such application under

section 2A(2) after the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in sub-section (1). The amendments to section 2A enabling industrial workman to

seek adjudication of his dispute has been introduced only on 15^th September, 2010 by when the three-year period

under sub-section (3) of section 2A had already expired. In terms of section 10 sub-section (1B) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the West Bengal Act, 33 of 1989 w.e.f. 8^th December, 1989, it was open to an

individual workman to apply to the Conciliation Officer for a certificate during the pendency of the conciliation

proceedings, in the event no settlement has arrived at within a period of 60 days from the date of raising of the

dispute. The Conciliation Officer thereafter on receipt of such application shall issue a certificate within 7 days from

the date of receipt in such a manner as may be prescribed. The party may within a period of 60 days from the receipt

of such certificate or when such certificate has not been issued within 7 days as aforesaid within a period of 60 days

commencing from the date immediately after the expiry of 7 days as aforesaid, file an application in the prescribed

form to the Labour Court or Tribunal as may be specified by the appropriate Government.”

Further it has been held “Time stipulated for invocation of the forum of the Labour Court under sub-section

(3) of Section 2A is “before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of such service specified in sub-section (1)” thereof. Time limit for making an application to the Labour

Court stipulated in sub section (3) of section 2A does not appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-section (2)

of Section 2A. In any case right conferred under section 2A lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three

years of the dater of dismissal etc. This sub section (3) of Section 2A operates independently, continuation of the

conciliations notwithstanding.”

Therefore, in view of above discussions and decisions of the Hon’ble Courts, this Tribunal is of view the

present reference is barred by limitation and not maintainable. Accordingly, the Reference Case No. 30 of 2022 is

dismissed being not maintainable and barred by limitation. Award of dismissal is hereby passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1330.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-07/2010) को िैसा दक

था।

[सं. एल-17011/1/2009-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life

Insurance Corporation of India and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[F. No. L-17011/1/2009-IR(M)]

D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 7 OF 2010

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Life Corporation of India Ltd.

AND

It’s Workman

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management : Mr. DilipKumar Kundu

On behalf of the Workman

: Mr. Saibal Mukherjee

Dated: 18th day of July, 2023

AWARD

By order No. L-17011/1/2009-IR(M) dated 09-06-2009, the Central Govt., Ministry of Labour in exercise of

power conferred under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act referred the following issue to this

Tribunal for adjudication :-

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, in relating to its Eastern

Zonal Office, Kolkata in imposing punishment of removal from Service w.e.f. 19-09-2005 on Sri Pallab

Lodha, Ex-Sub-Staff, working in Zonal Office, Kolkata is legal and justified? To what relief he is entitled?”

The facts giving rise to such dispute in brief are that Sri Pallab Lodha was appointed as a Peon on

16-03-1993 and later his service was confirmed and made him permanent staff of LIC w.e.f. 16-03-1994. That

Sri Pallab Lodha was a habitual absentee and used to remain on unauthorised leave, without prior sanction of leave or

without any intimation to his immediate controlling officer.

That employees of Life Insurance Corporation. Ltd. of India, are governed by LIC of India (Staff)

Regulations, 1960. Regulation 30 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations ,1960 provides that no employee shall absent

himself from his duty without having obtained the permission of the competent authority, nor shall he absent himself

in case of sickness without submitting the medical certificate satisfactory to the competent authority. Regulation 21 of

the said Staff Regulation provides that every employee of the Corporation shall at all times maintain absolute integrity

and devotion to duty, shall confirm to and abide by the said regulations.

That during the period from 04-03-1999 to 18-01-2000 said Sri Pallab Lodha remained on unauthorised leave

or absent for 154 days, without prior sanctioned and without informing the office. Consequently, he was charge

sheeted for such unauthorised absence for 154 days on 08-02-2000. Against such charge domestic enquiry was

initiated against him and he was found guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty for such

proved charge by withholding one increment for one year in terms of regulation 39 (1) (b) of the Regulations, 1960 on

28-11-2000.

Sri Lodha did not rectify himself and continued with his habit of absenteeism and again during the period

from 08-08-2000 to 29-11-2000 he absented himself from duty for 81 days and that too without any prior sanction or

without prior intimation to the authority concerned. Once again he was charge sheeted for remaining on such

unauthorised leave for 81 days on 16-12-2000. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him on such charge. He

was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry

Officer and imposed penalty by reducing basic pay of the by two stages, in view of provision of Regulation 39(1) (d)

of Regulations 1960 on 03-09-2001.

Inspite of such second punishment Sri Lodha did not rectify himself and he stuck to his habit of absenteeism

and remain absent for 25 days during the period from 14-05-2001 to 07-06-2001 and for 5 days during the period from

14-06-2001 to 18-06-2001 and remained in continued absence from 28-06-2001 till 14-09-2001. Accordingly, fresh

charge was framed against him for remaining on such unauthorised absence on 14-09-2001. Once again departmental

enquiry was started and in such enquiry he was found guilty and this time the disciplinary authority withheld three

increments permanently in terms of regulation 39(1) (d) and 39(1) (b) of the Regulations, 1960.

Further, he remained absent for 207 days during the period from 11-01-2004 to 19-10-2004. That he having

failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully

and acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. He was once

again charge sheeted for violating the provisions of regulation 21 and 30(1) of the LIC (Staff) Regulations,1960 and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2813

charge sheet was issued on 07-12-2004. He was served with the provisional list of documents and provisional list of

witness along with the charge sheet.

The concerned workman submitted his reply to the said charge on 24^th December, 2004/8^th January, 2005 and

where he has admitted the charges. Therefore, management decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against him.

The Enquiry Officer in its report dated 11^th April, 2005 found the concerned workman guilty of the charge. Copy of

the enquiry report was sent to the concerned workman for his comments on findings of the Enquiry Officer, but he did

not bother to submit his reply. Then, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice proposing the penalty of

his removal from his service on 29-06-2005.

The concerned workman submitted reply to the show cause notice on 21-06-2005. The disciplinary authority

in exercise of the power conferred on him under regulation 39 (1) (f) read with Schedule-1 of the LIC (Staff)

Regulations, 1960 imposed the penalty of removal of service w.e.f. 19-09-2005.

The concerned workman receiving the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority preferred

an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Appellant Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the punishment vide

order dated 29-12-2005.

Then, the concerned workman preferred a memorial as provided in Regulation 49 of Regulations, 1960

before the Chairman. The Chairman too rejected his memorial vide order dated 8^th September, 2009.

Against the order of removal from service w.e.f. 19-09-2005 the concerned workman raised the present

industrial dispute where he has alleged that he is a psychiatric and depression patient and because of his such illness

he was unable to attend his duty regularly. However, he has alleged that the domestic enquiry which was initiated

against him was in utter violation of the principle of natural justice where he was prevented from adducing evidence in

his defence. He was not allowed to cross examine the witness produced from the side of the management. The

management by adopting unfair labour practice has victimised him and illegally terminated his service. Therefore, he

has prayed for setting aside the punishment of removal from service and prayed for his reinstatement with full back

wages.

The workman has examined himself as W.W. No.1. From his side 25 documents have been produced and

marked as Exhibit- W/1 to W/25 on admission by the management as reflected from order dated 14-11-2019. It also

appears from the said order that the other four documents namely workman’s letter dated 04-03-2000, medical

certificate dated 30-07-2002, medical prescription dated 24-02-2005 and his another letter dated 20-12-2007 were not

exhibited or admitted by the management, but the record shows the workman has failed to prove those four documents

by examining the Doctor who issued those medical certificate and prescription and his own letters.

On the other hand the Management has examined Smt. Tuhina Bose, Assistant Secretary (P&IR) as M.W.

No.1. The entire record of the departmental proceeding has been produced and which have been marked as Exhibit-

M/A series i.e. M/A to M/A30.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties it appears that by raising present industrial dispute, the

workman has challenged his order of termination and also the domestic enquiry.

It is an admitted fact, the concerned workman was a permanent employee of Life Insurance Corporation of

India in the category of Peon or Group-D. That from Exhibit-A series it is seen that the concerned workman was not

charge sheeted for the first time for remaining unauthorised absence for 207 days in the year 11-01-2004 to 19-10-

2004 on 07-12-2004 but he was charge sheeted earlier on three different occasions for remaining on unauthorised

absence for 154 days in the year 1999 on 08-02-2000, for 81 days in the year 2000 on 16-12-2000, for 48 days during

the year 2001 on 14-09-2001.

That he was found guilty in all those three previous departmental enquiries for remaining on unauthorised

leave without sanctioned of leave and without prior intimation. It also seen that in those earlier departmental enquiries,

a lenient view was taken by the management of Life Insurance Corp. of India, first by withholding one increment for

one year, in second time by reducing basic pay by two stages in time scale, thirdly permanently withholding three

increments. So, It appears that in spite of having suffered such punishment, the workman did not bother to rectify

himself and he remained absence for 207 days in the year 2004.

That remaining absent for 207 days in a year the management has charge sheeted him on 7^th December, 2004

and the management not being satisfied with his reply to charge sheet decided to hold an enquiry on the charge.

Exhibit-M-A/27 prove that one Sri Swapan Kumar Chakraborty was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and

Sri A. Ghosh as a Presenting Officer. That as per the submission made by the workman he was permitted to take

assistance of his co-employees Sri Chanchal Bhattacharya as his defence representative in such enquiry.

Exhibit-M-A/27 bears the signature of the concerned workman. It further shows that he admitted the charge

framed against him. The Enquiry Officer to render just and fair enquiry decided to continue with the enquiry

proceeding.

2814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit- M-A/28, M-A/30 prove the concerned workman fully participated in the departmental enquiry. He

was allowed to examine the documents relied by the management and he also permitted to produce documents. The

departmental witness Sri N.C. Das, Administrative Officer, Marketing Department was cross examined by the defence

representative of the workman. During such cross examination he had stated that that the workman used to remain

absent continuously for number of days and that too without prior permission and in many occasion he was late in

submitting his leave application along with medical papers.

Sri N.C. Das during his cross examination further stated that whenever the workman used to come to the

office he used to behave properly as a normal person and used to discharge his duty normally. Such statement

suggests the workman was normal and not a psychiatric patient as alleged by himself.

The concerned workman during the departmental enquiry and to the question put by the Presenting Officer

why he was unable to produce the prescription of Dr,. J.K. Bhattacharya and produced cash memos of medicines. On

such question he has stated that he lost the prescription of the Doctor and that he used to buy medicines on his own

without any prescription and he never collected any cash memo and vouchers. Further he was put a question that the

department could not locate Dr. Suraj Rawat whose prescription he had submitted and to such question he has stated

that Dr. Suraj Rawat is a Nepali Doctor, but he could not give further details of the said Dr. Rawat. It is worth to

mention here that among Nepali community title Rawat is not known. Such statement of the concerned workman

makes his case of being a psychiatric patient and cause of his absenteeism doubtful.

The workman has filed a prescription and certificate issued by Dr. Soumitra Chatterjee, B.Sc, DHMS, FWT

&PET dated 2005 and which have been marked as Ext.-W-12 and W-13 i.e for the period after the charge sheet dated

07-12-2004. He has failed to examine such homeopathic doctor to prove the contents of those two exhibits. The

qualification of the above named Dr. as reflected from the prescription itself prove that he is not a psychiatrist.

That apart, prima facie from Exhibit- M-A series this Tribunal does not find any violation of principle of

natural justice during domestic enquiry. Rather it appears the management held the entire enquiry in the presence of

the workman and his representative and after serving the copy of documents on which it had relied and giving

opportunity to the representative of the workman to cross examined the management witness. Nothing has come on

record to show that unfair labour practice being adopted by the management of Life Insurance Corp. of India against

the workman or the workman to be a victim of unfair labour practice. This tribunal finds just and proper domestic

enquiry being held against the concerned workman.

In fact Exhibit-M-A. Series discussed above prove that the workman was guilty of chronic absenteeism. He

was not bothered about the fact that due to his excessive absenteeism, the management may had to face administrative

problem for not being able to utilised his service for the purpose of which he was recruited. It seems the workman had

taken the management or Authority for granted for its lenient attitude towards him as he knew that management at the

most would withheld his increment or reduce his pay scale as it was done in three previous occasions, but he would be

enjoying full pay packet without doing any work or without attending office. Such conduct on the part of the workman

proves that he had no regards to the service rules and regulations and also about the punishment for violation of

service rules and regulations. It appears the he has crossed the limit of patience and tolerance of the management by

remaining absent for 207 days in a period of 365 days. Out of remaining 158 days also it includes holidays e.g.

Saturday, Sunday, Festival holidays and National Holidays. Further, nothing is there to prove substantial cause

behind such excessive absenteeism. The plea of depression taken by him is not substantiated by cogent and reliable

medical evidence.

Therefore, considering such conduct of the workman, this Tribunal holds the disciplinary authority has

rightly removed him from the service.

That apart Exhibit-MA series shows that the disciplinary authority had taken the decision to remove him

from the service after considering his past conduct also. Similarly, the Appellant Authority as well as the Chairman

have rejected his appeal and memorial considering his past conduct and his no care attitude. Therefore, this Tribunal

does not find any need to hear the workman on punishment as this Tribunal upheld the decision taken by the

disciplinary authority in removing the working from the service of Peon from Life Insurance Corp. of India to be legal

and proper. If this workman inspite of holding guilty for excessive absenteeism in four different domestic enquiry is

allowed to continue in service, it would set a bad precedent in the establishment and other co-workers may be

encouraged in violating the service rules and regulations. The engagement of such type of an employee would be a

loss to the establishment.

Therefore, this Tribunal holds the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India is justified in

removing Sri Pallab Lodha from the service of Peon w.e.f. 19-09-2005. And do not find an need to linger the

proceeding further, for hearing on the point of quantum of punishment as imposed b the Disciplinary Authority. The

discussion made above prima facie prove the non-reformist attitude of the concerned workman and as such the

punishment of his removal from service do not appear to be disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the concerned

workman.

Accordingly, Reference Case No. 07 of 2010 is disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2815

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1331.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

भारत पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स नं.-16/2001) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 16.08.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/82/2000-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2023

S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Limited and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 16.08.2023.

[No. L-30011/82/2000-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 16 OF 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Limited.

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management of B.P.C.Ltd : Advocate Janardan Mondal

On behalf of M/s Security & Vigilance Agency: Absent

On behalf of the Workman

: Absent

Dated: 7th June, 2023

AWARD

By Order No L-30011/82/2000 /IR(M) dated 30-04-2001, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour has

referred the following issue to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kolkata in paying 65% of the

daily rate of wages instead of 100% for the period from 18-05-1996 to 31-03-1998 in terms of DGR instruction to the

contractor i.e. Security & Vigilance Agency who is responsible for paying the same wages to security personnel is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled? “

The facts leading to this reference in gist are that Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. for safety and security of its

establishment at Haldia, had engaged 17 ex-servicemen as Security Guards and 2 ex-servicemen as Supervisors

through Directorate General Resettlement (DGR) sponsored agency M/s. Security & Vigilance Agency on terms and

condition as set by DGR guideline/formula.

Those workmen were engaged earlier by another DGR sponsored agency named M/s. Purbanchal Ex-

Servicemen Welfare Association. On termination of its contract on 18-05-1996 M/s, Security & Vigilance Agency

was engaged and they continued to work under newly engaged service provider.

It is the contention of the Union that in view of DGR guidelines of 1993 they were paid 100% wages but

after the engagement of the M/s. Security & Vigilance Agency their wages have been reduced to 65%. They were not

2816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

entitled to draw Minimum Wages Act applicable in West Bengal as they being ex-servicemen governed by DGR

guidelines and in view of Govt. Of West Bengal notification dated 04-04-2000.

They have also alleged that they were not paid House Rent Allowance at the rate of 5% of the wages to

which they are otherwise entitled to. Therefore, the Union has prayed that both the principle employer and the

contractor employer to be directed to pay their arrear wages at 100% in view of DGR guidelines of 1993 for the period

from 18-05-1996 to 31-03-1998.

The Principle Employer in its written statement has contended the security personnel engaged by it were/are

sponsored by DGR. In view of circular issued by Commoder, Director (Employment) dated 01-02-1996, in order to

bring parity in wages payable to DGR sponsored ex-servicemen throughout India, their wages were/are paid as per

formula promulgated by DGR on Minimum Wages Act, which is revised periodically. In States, where wages have

not been revised for last 12 months, the minimum wages (Basic+VDA) to be paid are not to be less than 65% of Delhi

wages.The BPCL strictly followed such guidelines.

The security personnel engaged by it through M/s. Security & Vigilance Agency were entitled to draw wages

@ 65% of prevalent Delhi wages w.e.f. 01-02-1996 and not 100% wages during the period from 18-05-1996 to 31-03-

1998.

The tripartite settlement dated 27-06-1996 was executed amongst the Union, Contractor Employer and

Assistant Labour Commissioner. BPCL was not the party to such settlement and as such BPCL is not bound by any

terms and conditions of tripartite settlement. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the reference being not

maintainable.

M/s,. Security & Vigilance Agency, in its written statement stated that it had submitted its quotation before

BPCL and as per para 4 of the quotation it had quoted wages @ Rs.2,171/- per month per security guard and

Rs.2,836/- per month per security superior and in addition 25% of the total wages as service charges of the agency. As

per DGR’s letter No. 2112/SA/DGR/RW/ EMP/92 dated 30-03-1992, the DGR sponsored guards were entitled to

100% wages of 1993 and subject to upward revision.

On acceptance of its tender/quotation, an agreement was executed for a period from 01-06-1996 to 31-05-

1998 for BPCL staff quarter and from 18-05-1996 to 17-05-1998 for BPCL project site. That both the contracts which

it had with BPCL expired on 30-06-1998 after an extension.

It has also alleged that there was tripartite agreement on 23-07-1996 and it was agreed whenever the DGR

revises the wages of security personnel the same will be implemented after acceptance and payment by BPCL, the

Principal Employer. Arrear, if any, will be paid only on receipt from BPCL.

It has also alleged that rate of wages for security staff was revised by DGR w.e.f. February 1996 and fixed at

Rs.3,288/- per month per security guard and Rs.4,371/- per month per security Supervisor.

Similarly, there was revision of wages by DGR w.e.f. February 1997, and the wage of security guard was

fixed at Rs.3,498 per month per and Rs.4,611/- per month per security Supervisor.

During 1998 the wage was fixed at Rs.3,826/- per month per security guard and Rs.5,070/- per security

Supervisor. But at the same time admitted the rate quoted by it in the agreement was not as prescribed or formulated

by by DGR. Workmen refused to accept 65% DGR rate and demanded 100% DGR revised rate.

The Union to prove its case and claim has examined workmen Ashish Kumar and Sri Kalyan Das as WW-01

and W.W.-02.

From the side of the Union seven documents namely:-

(1) Memorandum of Agreement executed between BPCL and M/s. Security & Vigilance Agency dated 26-07-1996,

(2) Memorandum of Settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act between Security & Vigilance

Agency and their workmen before A.L.C.(Central) dated 23.07.1996,

(3) Xerox copy of Govt. Of West Bengal, Labour Department notification dated 04-04-2000,

(4) Revision of wages issued by Govt. Of India, Ministry of Defence dated November 1993,

(5) DGR instructions with regard to wage structure of security personnel as on 01-02-1997

(6) DGR instructions with regard to wages structure of security personnel as on 01-02-1998 and

(7) Guidelines for sponsoring and operating of security agency and related activities issued by Directorate of

Employment, Directorate General Resettlement and which have been marked as Exhibit-W-1 to W-7.

On the other hand the Management of BPCL has examined in part one Sri S. Balakrishnan as M.W.no.1.

Therefore, his part evidence is not considered and treated as expunged. However, management produced one Sri

Avijit Chanda as M.W. 2.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2817

The management of BPCL has produced Xerox copy of Exhibit-W-1 and copy of extract of DGR guideline

concerning security agency from 01-03-1996 and which have been marked as Exhibit-M-1 to M-2.

The contractor employer has failed to pursue with the case and adduce evidence in support of the case by it in

its written statement. It has been proceeded exparte.

From the pleadings of the parties, oral evidence of witnesses and from documentary evidence, it is appears

the BPCL indeed all along used to engage ex-servicemen as security guards at its establishment and that too though

DGR sponsored agency. With the change in agency on expiry of contract period security guards already working for it

were/are absorbed by its newly engaged agency sponsored by Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence.

Ext-W-1/Ext-M-1 prove M/s. Security & Vigilance Agency was one of the sponsored agencies of Directorate

General Resettlement. From the evidence of witnesses and from exhibited documents, further it is seen n expiry of

contract it had with M/S Purbanchal Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association, it had engaged Security & Vigilance

Agency as service provider for security guards for a period from 18-05-1996 till 17-05-1998. It has absorbed those 19

security personnel who were already working in the establishment of BPCL under another contractor.

It is the contention of the Union, those workmen in view of DGR guideline of 1993 used to draw 100% of

wages. The Union exhibited order of revision of wages issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence in the month

of November, 1993 as Exhibit-W-4. Exhibit-W-4 is not legible, but somehow it is seen that the minimum rate of

wages applicable in National Capital Territory of Delhi for semi-skilled workmen which was Rs.1,176/- was revised

to Rs.1,217/- and one who used to get wages at the rate of Rs.1,328/- was raised to Rs.1,369/-w.e.f. 01-09-1983.

M-2 is the extract of the DGR guidelines of the concerning security agency effective from 01-03-1996 which

shows that wage structure as payable in Delhi for security guard was fixed at Rs.3,880/-, to Gunman at Rs.4,810/-,

Supervisor at Rs.5,158/- and Assistant Security Supervisor at Rs.6,324/- and such wage structure was given effect

from February, 1996. It further provides due to large variation in minimum wages in different states and unions and

non-revision by the States and Unions, security personnel engaged outside NCT of Delhi should not be paid not less

than 65% of Minimum Wages.

Exhibit-W-1 and Exhibit-M-1 shows that M/s. Security and Vigilance Agency was engaged as a service

provider by BPCL for the period from 18-05-1996 to 17-05-1998 on the basis of agreement executed in between

BPCL and the service provider on 26-06-1996. Therefore, the workmen engaged by M/s. Security and Vigilance

Agency being governed by DGR guidelines, they are entitled not less than 65% of Minimum Wages fixed for NCT

Delhi.

As per Exhibit-M-2 it is admitted fact that service provider had engaged 17 security guards and 2 Supervisors

for the establishment of BPCL and both the employers agreed to pay wages to them as per DGR Guidelines.

Therefore, as per Ext M-2 the 17 security guards and 2 security supervisors were entitled to get not less than 65% of

Minimum wages fixed for NCT Delhi i.e.65% of Rs.3880 for Security Guards 65% of Rs.5158 and which comes to

Rs.2522/- and Rs.3353/-respectively from the month of February 1996.

As per Exhibit W-5 the wages of those two category of workmen were revised w.e.f. February 1997 to Rs.

4128/- and to Rs. 5476/-respectively. In that case their wages ought to had been Rs.2,683/- per month and Rs.3,559/-

respectively.

Similarly, exhibit w-6 shows, there was further revision in the wage structure of those security guards w.e.f.

01-02-1998. The wage of security guards was raised to Rs.4,515/- and that of Security Supervisor to Rs.5,983/-.

Therefore, they were entitled to get not less than Rs.2,935/-per month and Rs. 3,889/-per month respectively w.e.f. 01-

02-1998.

Ext W-1, the agreement of contract executed between two employers on 26.071996 and for a period from

18.05.1996 to 17.05.1998 show wages of security guard was fixed at Rs. 2171p.m. and Rs. 2836 p.m. for Security

Supervisor.

Prima-facie it appears the contractor employer had quoted wages less than 65% of Minimum Wages Rate

fixed by DGR for NCT Delhi w.e.f. February 1996. As per DGR Formula and Guidelines the wages of security

guards and security supervisors should not had been less than Rs.2522/- and Rs.3353/-respectively.

Further, Ext.W-1 prove that it was agreed between the employers the workmen will be paid wages at revised

rate as and when any upward revision was made by DGR and arrear too would be paid by the Principal Employer.

But Ext.W-2 prove there was no due compliance of the DGR Formula or guidelines in fixation of wage rate

and as such there was a dispute between the contractor employer and its employee.

Nothing has come on record what steps were taken by the contractor employer with the Principal Employer

for revision of wages as per DGR guidelines and formula or how much it paid to the workmen from February 1997

and February 1998 till its contract period was expired. Therefore, it can be assumed that those 19 workmen were never

paid the wages as per DGR guidelines.

2818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Similarly, nothing has come from the side of the Principal Employer to show indeed it paid wages to the

contractor employees as DGR guidelines through its contractor. Therefore, it can be safely held that both the

employers were engaged in unfair labour practice by paying them less than 65% of Minimum wages fixed for NCT

Delhi. Since those security guards were engaged through a service provider to work in the establishment of BPCL. As

per terms and conditions stipulated in the contract, it appears BPCL was ultimately liable to pay the legal wages to

which those security guards were entitled as per DGR guidelines. But it stands prove that Principal Employer and its

service provider had failed to adhere the DGR guidelines and thereby deprived the ex-servicemen of the wages to

which they were legally entitled.

Therefore this Tribunal holds that 17 security guards and 2 Security Supervisors were entitled to wages per

month in the following rates for the period from 18.05.1996 to 17.05.1998 :-

Period

Security Guards

Security Supervisor

From18-05-1996 to 31-01-1997

Rs.2,522/- p.m.

Rs.3353/- p.m.

From 01-02-1997 to 31-01-1998

Rs.2,683/- p.m.

Rs. 3,559/- p.,.

From 01-02-1998 to 17-05-1998

Rs.2,935/- p.m,.

Rs.3,889/- p.m.

BPCL is bound to pay the wages in the above rate to those 17 security Guards and 2 Security Supervisors

during the period it has engaged M/s. Security and Vigilance Agency as its service provider and who had absorbed

those security guards already working for it but under its previous service provider.

Union has been able to prove that BPCL had failed to pay the wages to 19 Security personnel it had engaged

through contractor at the rate which was formulated by DGR during the period from 18-05-1996 to 17-05-1998 and

they are entitled to get the arrear from BPCL

BPCL is hereby directed to pay the arrears of wages to those 19 workmen to which they were entitled within

three months from the date hereof along with interest @12% per annum from the date of due till payment.

It is very pertinent to note that the union/workmen have stopped taking any step when the matter was ripened

to the stage of argument and saw no further progress and development in the dispute espoused by then even after

waiting for more than two decades. Since they have been successful in the battle fought by them for more than two

decades but which they have abandoned before the declaration of the result, then a duty is cast upon this Tribunal to

inform them result.

Therefore, office is directed to notify following persons about the award:-

(1) W.W.No1 Sri Asish Kumar Dolui, S/o. Sri/Late Banamali Dolui, Vill. Bangapara, P.O. Deulpota, Dist. East

Midnapore

(2) W.W.No.2 Sri Kalkyan Das, S/o Late/Sri Laxmikanta Das, resident of CPT Contractors Colony, P.O. &

P.S. Durgachak, Dist. East Midnapore and

(3) The General Secretary, Haldia Security Agency Staff Association, Shramik Bhaban, Chiranjibpur, Debhog,

Haldia, Midnapore, West Bengal, by Speed Post by sending a copy of this award so that they can claim their

legitimate due from the management of BPCL.

Accordingly, reference case no.16 of 2001 is allowed and award to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1332.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds कमाकार ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (101/2003) प्रकाजित djrh gSA

[सं. ,y L-12025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-74]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2023

S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 101/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2819

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workman.

[No. L-12025/01/2023-IR(B-I)-74]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of July, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 101/2003

Between:

Sri Ch. Paradesi,

S/o Ch. Israil,

Kankaraguta Post

Guntur Mandal

Guntur District.

… Petitioner

And

The Chief Manager,

Personnel Section,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Labbipet,

Vijayawada.

The General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Personnel Department,

Local Head Office, Bank Street,

Hyderabad.

…..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Suman, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Ch. Paradesi who worked as Messenger (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 State Bank of India seeking for

reinstatement into service as Messenger/Sweeper 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 deem fit.

Earlier this industrial dispute was answered by this Tribunal by a common award dated 17.5.2005, along with

other batch cases, and the claim of the workman was dismissed. Workman challenged said award before the Hon’ble

High Court vide WP No. 6470/2006 & batch wherein Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide decision dated 23.6.2014 set

aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Hyderabad and directed the Respondent bank to reengage the workmen in the positions which they had been

occupying prior to termination. Being aggrieved by the said order in WP No. 6470/2006 & batch, Respondent bank

preferred appeal WA Nos.1268/2014 and batch cases wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court held:-

“(1)

affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the “extent it sets aside the common

award dated 17.5.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2)

The further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated;

2820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3)

all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer

limit of five(5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4)

the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WA No.1268/2014 and other batch, held that, “ Hearing the learned

senior counsel for the SBI and the Learned Senior Counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents, we see that while

the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than

one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims

as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the

post for each one of them, who have worked etc. All these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each

case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and the most

important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a

relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could not

have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating

body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would

sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the

further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases HCJ&ARR,J

WA No. 1268 of 2014 & Batch 6 have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure before

the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an

opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further

material before the Tribunal//The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that

enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited.”

Therefore, in compliance with order dated 20.3.2019 of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad passed in WA

No.1268/2014, this Industrial Tribunal conducted hearing proceedings in this reference on an individual basis and

both parties have been provided ample hearing opportunity during the proceeding.

The factual matrix of the present industrial dispute is as follows:

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The petitioner, Sri Ch. Paradesi, was working as a Messenger in the State Bank of India since 1986. He worked until

March, 1997 when he was stopped from working based on the orders of the respondent panels. The petitioner was

called for an interview in 1989 and included in the panel in 1991. During the period from July, 1991 to March, 1997,

he worked for a total number of 1060 days. Contempt petition was filed regarding the employment of temporary and

casual workers as the petitioner was not considered for regular employment while his juniors were. In June, 1999, a

stay order was obtained, preventing recruitment from taking place. As a result, the petitioner has crossed the age limit

for recruitment and cannot seek alternate employment. The petitioner had previously worked from 1975 to 1991 but

was denied employment by a blank order from the Regional Manager, Tirupati. A settlement in 1987 allowed those

who had completed a minimum number of working days to be called for interviews. The petitioner was asked to work

temporarily during this time. Multiple settlements were made without considering the petitioner's name for absorption

into permanent employment. Panels were prepared concurrently, and the Branch Manager was directed not to engage

temporary employees from July, 1997. Writ petitions were filed, and the Single Judge directed the State Bank of

India to absorb the petitioner within six months. However, the respondent appealed to the Division Bench, which set

aside the single judge's order and directed the petitioner to exhaust remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. The

petitioner claims that he is more senior compared to many of the people selected later who are still working. Despite

the existence of branch vacancies, the petitioner was not considered for employment. The petitioner's services were

abruptly stopped without any reason or following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that

the respondents have not exhausted the necessary procedures before retrenching the petitioner. The abrupt termination

is seen as an unfair labour practice. The petitioner's name was included in a panel valid until December 1991, which

was prepared after March 31, 1997. The petitioner claims a reasonable expectation of continuation in service. The

petitioner submits that the respondent's actions constitute discrimination among equally qualified candidates, contrary

to guidelines established by the Supreme Court. The petitioner believes that only empanelled candidates, including

himself, should be appointed to temporary or permanent vacancies until they are absorbed. Previous settlements

were not implemented as intended, and subsequent agreements were made without following the intention to give

chances to empanelled candidates. The petitioner disputes the respondent's claim that the panel of temporary

employees and casual labour expired on March 31, 1997, arguing that there is no specified authority to decide the

validity or termination of the panel. The petitioner claims that since the illegal termination, alternative employment

has not been secured by him despite best efforts. The petitioner requests the court to declare the respondent's

termination of service as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. He seek reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages,

and other associated benefits deemed fit by the court.

4. The Respondents filed counter refuting the averments made by the Petitioner in the claim petition, and the

contention of the Respondent in brief runs as follows:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2821

The respondent submits that the claim petition is not valid and goes against the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They

deny the allegations made in the claim statement and demand proof of those allegations. The respondent bank used to

hire temporary subordinate staff to cope with staff shortages and government-imposed restrictions. The All India State

Bank of India Staff Federation advocated for temporary employees with less than 240 days of service to be considered

for permanent appointments. Discussions were held between the federation and the bank, leading to a settlement that

aimed to provide fair treatment to temporary employees. The settlement includes various factors, some of which are

relevant to the current application.

On 17.11.1987, an agreement was signed between the Federation and the management Bank under Section

2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967.

As per settlement the temporary employees were categorized into three categories, detailed as under:

i) Category 'A' :

Those, who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 01.07.1975.

ii) Category 'B':

Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months

after 01. 07.1975.

iii) Category 'c':

Those, who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 01.07.1975

or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 01. 07.1975.

In the initial settlement, it was agreed that temporary employees would be given an opportunity for permanent

appointments in the bank for vacancies expected to arise from 1987 to 1991. However, on July 16, 1988, a subsequent

agreement was reached between the Federation and the bank, extending the consideration period for vacancies from

1987 to 1992. This agreement was signed under relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act and its associated

rules, and it will be referred to as the second settlement.

Later, on October 27, 1988, another agreement, referred to as the third settlement, was reached between the

Federation and the bank. It introduced a new clause, 1-A, after clause 1 in the initial settlement. This clause stated that

individuals engaged on a casual basis to fill in for leave or casual vacancies in positions like messengers, farrashes,

cash coolies, water boys, sweepers, etc., would also be considered for permanent appointments in the bank for

vacancies expected to arise from 1988 to 1992. Therefore, not only temporary employees receiving scale wages but

also casual or daily wagers would be eligible for permanent absorption into the bank.

Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.1990 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with

regard to the absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement

along the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than

240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act might be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. With respect to

temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement

could be avoided, however, if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the

representative union. In para 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary

service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for consideration under the scheme. Although the

Government guidelines envisaged a settlement in respect of temporary employees who had put in temporary service of

90 days or more days, the Bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who

had put in less than 90 days.

According to the settlement dated November 17, 1987, temporary employees who had worked with the bank

from July 1, 1975, to December 31, 1987, were given an opportunity to be considered for permanent appointment

against future vacancies. The eligible candidates were categorized into three groups based on their completed days of

service: Category A (240 days), Category B (270 days), and Category C (70 days). The waitlisted candidates' panel

would remain valid until December 31, 1991. Through a modification in the second settlement on July 16, 1988, the

qualifying service date was extended to July 31, 1988, instead of December 31, 1987. An advertisement was issued

on August 1, 1988, calling for applications from temporary employees who received scale wages, region-wise, to fill

the vacancies in different regions.

The third settlement on October 27, 1988, was a result of the union's advocacy for casual or daily wage

workers. It was decided to consider all candidates for vacancies likely to arise between 1988 and 1992. While the

number of vacancies in some regions exceeded the waitlisted temporary employees, the Chennai circle was an

exception as there were more waitlisted temporary candidates than available vacancies.

2822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

On January 9, 1991, the fourth settlement was reached, extending the validity of the panel from 1991 to

1994. After December 31, 1994, the remaining candidates on the panel would have no claim. Following the third

settlement, the bank issued an advertisement on May 1, 1991, inviting applications from casual/daily wage workers

for consideration for permanent appointment. This created concerns among temporary employees who felt threatened

if a common list was created. However, if the casual daily wagers were placed at the end of the list, there would have

been no cause for concern.

11.

In response, the SBI Employees Union filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.7872 of 1991) seeking relief to

operate the waitlist based on the August 1, 1988, advertisement and not to operate any list based on the May 1, 1991,

advertisement. An interim stay was granted regarding the latter aspect, which lasted for more than eight years until

July 23, 1999. Consequently, no list of casual posts/daily wage workers could have been drawn up during this period,

and the list of temporary employees should have been in operation. The writ petition was finally disposed of on July

23, 1999, by which time the relief sought in the petition would have been implemented.

12.

The 5^th settlement was arrived at on 30^th July 1996 requiring the panel to be kept alive up to 31^st March, 1997

and this was in respect of the vacancies which became available up to 31^st December 1994.

13.

The respondent submits that the petitioner has not worked for more days than those who have been absorbed

into the vacancies as agreed upon. They deny the petitioner's claim of continuous years of work and state that the

petitioner, who has worked for less than 240 days in a 12-month period from 1975 to 1988, has no right to seek

absorption in the bank except under the settlements. The case of the petitioner has already been considered under

several settlements, and therefore, all the provisions and terms of those settlements are binding on them. The

respondent submits that the applicant and other ex-temporary employees do not have an independent right, and their

claims are based solely on the settlements. The preparation and maintenance of panels are in compliance with the

agreed terms of the settlements. The panels, including the applicant, have ceased to exist after the designated period,

and the remaining candidates have no right or claim against the bank. The settlements explicitly stated that the panels

would not be kept alive until all candidates were absorbed. The applicant is barred from questioning the validity of the

settlements after accepting the benefits and empanelment. According to the settlement dated January 9, 1991,

vacancies until December 1994 were to be filled based on seniority from the 1989 panel. After that, the panel lapsed,

and the remaining candidates have no claim for permanent absorption. The same applies to the 1992 panel. The

respondent submits that only the temporary service rendered from January 1, 1975, to July 31, 1988, is considered for

permanent absorption, and days worked after that period are not counted since the panels had already lapsed. The

bank never promised to absorb all candidates in the panel, as the advertisement clearly stated that candidates would be

considered for absorption in vacancies until 1992. According to the respondent, the vacancies were identified and the

ex-temporary employees in the panels were absorbed based on seniority, as per the settlements between the Federation

and the management Bank. The respondent submits that mere empanelment does not guarantee absorption for the

petitioners, and keeping the panels alive after March 31, 1997, goes against the settlements. The respondent submits

that the settlements between the State Bank of India and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation have the

force of law and are binding on the parties. The petitioners themselves have acted upon the settlements by being on

the panel, and therefore, they are bound by the terms of the settlements. The maintenance of panels is in line with the

agreed terms of the settlements, and the Bank has strictly adhered to these terms. The present application is based

solely on the settlements and not on any independent right or provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. The panels

under the settlements had a specific time limit, and this term cannot be modified in any legal proceedings. Therefore,

those temporary employees who could not be accommodated due to lack of vacancies have no further rights for

regularization under the settlements or otherwise. The bank has fully complied with the settlements, and the

mentioned circulars and letters were merely directives to discontinue the practice of engaging temporary employees,

which was also a term of the settlements. It is submitted that some writs were filed by certain temporary employees

who were also called for interview and empanelled. In writ petition No.12964/94, the Hon’ble High Court went into

similar contentions in detail and the Learned Judge also referred to the settlements and subsequently held that the

Petitioners therein were not entitled to any relief and the only relief they can claim is enforcement of settlements, if

there is any right flowing from it or it has been violated. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is as

follows:

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which

is the majority union and the bank management is binding on the petitioners also. It is not, at all the case of the

petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank’s management. If the Petitioner had

worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services

should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the

present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right

which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank management. As already pointed out that it is not

the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitioner has

been denied by the bank management. Therefore, I domestic enquiry not find any ground, let alone substantial

ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Petitioner. Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No

costs.”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2823

The respondent submits that the settlements clearly state that the panels would cease to exist at the end of the

designated period, and there would be no further temporary or casual recruitment. The relief sought by the applicant,

if granted, would essentially make temporary employment permanent through a backdoor entry, which goes against

the settlements, as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It would also deprive rightful claimants of their

chances through proper recruitment procedures. The settlements were intended as a one-time measure to end the

practice of temporary engagement, and the rights of the applicant were determined by these settlements. Therefore,

there is no legitimate expectation or estoppel, as contractual rights arising from an industrial settlement take

precedence. The bank did not make any statement or representation guaranteeing permanent appointment, as clearly

stated in the advertisement issued pursuant to the first settlement, which outlined the process of being considered for

permanent appointment and being wait-listed based on suitability and subject to vacancies, with the waitlist valid until

1991.

14.

The ex-temporary employees in the panels filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

which was initially allowed by the Single Judge. However, the bank appealed this decision, and the Division Bench of

the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order. The ex-temporary employees then filed a Special Leave Petition

before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Therefore, the reference to the Single Judge's judgment in the

writ petition is irrelevant, as it has been overturned. The petitioner has not worked for the required 240 days in any

preceding 12-month period, so the reference to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not relevant. The

petitioners’ claim regarding their service and educational qualifications require strict proof. The allegation of

termination is incorrect, as the vacancies were filled based on seniority, and the non-engagement of the petitioner does

not constitute termination. Temporary employees are subject to the availability of work, and there is no obligation to

continue their employment when there is no work. The bank has not engaged in unfair labour practices, and the

settlements are binding on the petitioner, having been fully implemented without violating any provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The issue has been addressed in various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts,

and the petitioner's industrial dispute lacks merit and should be dismissed.

15.

The Petitioner in support of his claim examined himself as WW1 and also filed photocopies of 15

documents which were marked as Ex.W1 to W15. Ex.W1 is the news paper advertisement, Ex.W2 is 1^st panel list,

Ex.W3 to W9 are service certificates, Ex.W10 is circular regarding lapse of panel, Ex.W11 is news paper

advertisement, Ex.W12 is 2^nd panel list, Ex.W13 is Transfer certificate of School, Ex.W14 is caste certificate of WW1

and Ex.W15 is employment registration certificate. On the other hand, Respondent filed photocopies of 12 documents

which were marked as Ex.M1 to M12. Ex.M1 to M4 are settlements between Respondent and All India State Bank of

India Staff Federation. Ex.M5 is conciliation proceedings. Ex.M6 is another settlement. Ex.M7 is Memorandum of

understanding. Ex.M8 is statement giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel. Ex.M9 is statement of 1989 non-

messenger panel. Ex.M10 is statement of 1992 panel. Ex.M11 is order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 and

Ex.M12 is order in SLP No.11886-11888.

16.

On the basis of the pleadings and the submissions made by the parties, following points emerge for

determination:-

I. Whether the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the services of the workman, w.e.f,

31.03.1997 is legal and justified?

II. Whether the workman in terms of settlements arrived at between the Respondent Bank Management and the

Federation of Employees is entitled for regularization absorption in the service of Bank?

III. To what relief, the workman is entitled for?

Findings:

17. Points No. I & II:- The workman claims that he had been working with the Respondent Bank since 1986 on

temporary basis. In the year 1988, Respondent No. 2 issued advertisement for calling applications from the then

temporary subordinate employees for the post of messenger. The workman moved application and he received

interview call letter dated 12.07.1989 from bank to attend the interview on 25.07.1989 workman attended interview

and Respondent Bank prepared an panel List of all the successful candidates in the year 1991 and the Petitioner’s

name appeared also in the panel list. The Respondent Bank utilized the services of the empanelled employees and

workman on temporary basis till March 1997 and some of the empanelled employees were given permanent

appointment basing on the number of days of service put up by them. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 issued a Letter

dated 25.03.1997 directing all Branch Managers not to utilize the services of the empanelled Messenger and to declare

that the panel list of 1991 will lapse by 31.03.1997. Therefore, all the remaining empanelled employees as per the

panel list of 1999, were denied employment after 31.03.1997. It is further submitted by the workman that Respondent

No. 2 issued another advertisement in the year 1991 calling application for interview from the then temporary working

messengers and selected some of the candidates among the applicants and prepared another panel list of 80

employees. The said panels lapsed in March 1997. However, surprisingly all the temporary employees as per

Second panel List of 1993 were given permanent appointment and that order was issued just 15 days before the

lapse of the panel List. It is further submitted that the empanelled employees of Second panel List of 1993 were

2824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

juniors to the temporary employees’ of first panel list of 1991 in terms of number of days of service put up by them.

Therefore, the act of Respondent Bank appointing the junior employees of second panel list ignoring the senior

employees of the first panel list of 1991 is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal which goes to indicated that the

Respondent Bank chose to favour the employees of second panel List of 1993 for the reason best known to the

Respondent Bank.

18.

On the other hand, the Respondent countered the allegations made by the workman and submitted that the

persons who do not have the requisite number of days of service as per the settlement, could not be considered for

permanent absorption. It is contended that the bank had never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be

absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that the candidate will be considered for the absorption in the

vacancies that may arise up to 1992. Since the panel list had already lapsed on 31.03.1997, and the vacancies were

already filled up by absorbing the temporary attendants and daily wagers/casual employees respectively in order of

their seniority in the empanelment, therefore, the consideration of engaging their services including workman could

not have arise. Therefore, panel list of daily wagers prepared in the year 1992 was used for filling vacancies which

arose up to end of 1994 and the said panel list automatically lapsed after the filling of the aforesaid vacancies.

19.

In support of his claim, the workman has examined himself as WW1 and in chief examination, he reiterated

his claim as made in his petition. Further he stated that Ex. W2 is the document referred List of empanelment Ex.

W3-W9 are service certificates according to which the workman has worked for total number of 1060 days. In cross

examination, WW1 states that he was not given any posting order at the time of joining the service nor at any other

time. On the oral instruction of Branch Manager, he worked in the Branch. Further, he admits that in the panel list

released by the management on 18.02.1993, his name was not a part of the list and that he did not work continuously

for 240 days in any year of service. He further states that he is not aware of any settlements between the Management

and the Union. On the other hand, the Respondent has examined MW1 and in his chief examination the witness had

stated that the petitioner was included in the panel list 1989 however, as the existing vacancies at that time were

exhausted, his turn didn’t come, and he could not be given permanent employment in the bank. All the appointments

were made strictly in accordance with the settlement between the SBI management and the SBI Staff Federation.

The witness has also stated that as per the seniority was determined on the basis of number of days as temporary

service put in by the employee in the given period and all the appointments were made as per seniority. Witness

states that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The

petitioner and other temporary employees were not terminated from service by the Bank. The vacancies were filled up

on regular basis with the temporary employees from the panel list and which were expired in terms of settlement on

31.03.1997 and there were no vacancies to absorb rest of the empanelled employees.

20.

In view of the above statement of witness, it manifests that, the workman did not work for 240 days

continuously in any year in the service. Therefore, the protection of the provisions under Section 25 (f) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 against the retrenchment is not available to the workman. The initial burden of proof was on the

workman to show that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in the employment of bank from the date just

preceding date of termination, but he failed to discharge his burden of proof.

In the case of Mohan Lal v. Management BEL 1981 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:

"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.”

"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"

Therefore, in view of the above law, the claim of the workman that Respondent has not exhausted procedure before

his retrenchment from service is not tenable.

21.

Further, the workman claimed that his name was included in the empanelment of 1991 for regularization on

temporary posts, but he was not regularized in the service and the temporary employees junior to him in service were

appointed on permanent posts from the empanelment of 1993. However, WW1 in cross-examinations has admitted

that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He could not indicate any instance of regularizing the

temporary employee from the panel list of 1991, junior to him. Since, as per settlements arrived at between the

Federation of Bank Employees and Respondent Bank Management, the vacancies for the empanelled employees of

1991 were available which would arise upto December, 1994 and those vacancies were absorbed from the panel list

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2825

1991 in order of seniority. Therefore, due to non-availability of the vacancies, and the workman not having the

requisite number of days in service, and also workman being junior to other workmen in the panel, could not be

granted regularization/absorption as a permanent employee in the Bank. It is admitted by the workman that the panel

list was prepared in terms of settlement arrived at between the State Bank Management and Federation of State Bank

Management Employees Association and the same is binding on both parties under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. Therefore, in view of the above, settlements and awards are binding on the parties to the agreement.

In the case of National Engineers Industries v. St. of Rajasthan Civil Appeal No. 16832/1996 dated 01.12.1999,

three judges bench of Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“In Ram Pukar Singh and Ors. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and Qrs. [1994] 6 SCC 145 this Court said that

a settlement arrived at between the management and the sole recognised union of workmen under section 12(3) read

with section 18 of the Act would be binding on all the workmen whether members of the union or not.”

Therefore, mere empanelment of the named workman, in the list for regularization, does not entitled him for

absorption in the Bank’s service as a permanent employee. As per the settlement, the panel lists expired on

31.03.1997, and thereafter, the life of the panel list could not be extended. In the Writ Petition No. 12964/1994, the

Hon’ble High Court observed:-

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which

is the majority union and the bank management is binding on the petitioners also. It is not at all the case of the

petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the Bank's Management. If the petitioner had

worked in the Bank on Part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in his a right to claim that his services

should be regularised on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the petitioner in the

present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the petitioner to claim any right

which flows from the settlement between the union and the Bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the

grievance of the petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the petitioner has been

denied by the Bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind

of relief sought for by the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

Therefore, the claim of workman in the present matter can not be considered beyond the terms and conditions of

aforesaid settlement between Bank Management and Federation of employees.

Further, in the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

"Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule, the High Court

relying upon some earlier decisions of the Court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year

which on the face of it is erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was

justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution

a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of

legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.

The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or

orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the

provisions of law or to do something which in contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory

rule contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court could issue the

impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no

longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist."

Similarly in the case of Syndicate Bank and other Vs. Shankar Paul AIR 1997 SC 3091, it was held :

"Temporary were made from the empanel of eligible candidates prepared by calling names from employment

exchange, the empanel was valid for only year. When the said employee claimed permanent absorption in service, the

Apex Court has held that, whatever conditions regarding these empanelled candidates had they come an end on the

expiry of one year."

In the present matter also, since the panel list 1991, which was prepared for the vacancies arising up to December

1994, expired on 31.03.1997, and it could be extended after the said expiry date and moreover, the panel list

exhausted from the vacancies available upto 1994 with the absorption of empanelled senior employees. Thus, the

workman being junior in that panel list could not get regularization / absorption in the service. Therefore, the

workman failed to prove his claim as alleged in his petition.

Points No. I & II is answered accordingly.

22.

Point No. III:-

In view of the findings given in Points No. I & II, the claim of the workman for regularization in the service of

Respondent Bank is unfounded and devoid of merits. Therefore, the workman is not entitled for any relief of

2826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reinstatement or regularization in the employment of Respondent Bank. Hence, his claim petition is liable to be

dismissed.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in terminating the

services of Sri Ch. Paradesi, is legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and

consequently petition stands dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 3^rd day of

July, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Ch. Paradesi

MW1: Sri Alluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of News paper advertisement

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of 1^st panel list

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. nil

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 8.8.88

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 14.12.89

Ex.W6:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 1.6.91

Ex.W7:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 1.8.92

Ex.W8:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 29.7.95

Ex.W9:

Photocopy of service certificate dt. 14.2.98

Ex.W10:

Photocopy of Panel lapsed circular dt.25.3.1997

Ex.W11:

Photocopy of news paper advertisement

Ex.W12:

Photocopy of 2^nd panel list

Ex.W13:

Photocopy of Transfer Certificate of school DT.17.7.84

Ex.W14:

Photocopy of caste certificate of WW1

Ex.W15:

Photocopy of employment registration certificate dt.18.6.83

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 26, 2023/भाद्र 4, 1945

2827

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non0messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्ट्त, 2023

का.आ. 1333.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds कमाकार ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (15/2001) प्रकाजित djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-L-12012/294/2000-vkbZvkj(ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 17th August, 2023

S.O. 1333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workman.

[No. L-12012/294/2000-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25^th day of July, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 15/2001

Between:

Sri M. Seshagiri Rao,

S/o Nagendrudu,

8^th ward, Avanigadda

Krishna District.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, RG-II,

Labbipet,

Vijayawada -520 004.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Suman, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/294/2000-IR(B.I) dated 19.4.2001

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

2828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2023/BHADRA 4, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

THE SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing services of

Shri M. Seshagiri Rao, Ex.Messenger, by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID 15/2001 and notices were issued to both the workman and the

management.

Earlier this reference was answered by this Tribunal by a common award dated 17.5.2005, along with other

batch cases, and the claim of the workman was dismissed. Workman challenged said award before the Hon’ble High

Court vide WP No. 6470/2006 & batch wherein Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide decision dated 23.6.2014 set aside

the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad

and directed the Respondent bank to reengage the workmen in the positions which they had been occupying prior to

termination. Being aggrieved by the said order in WP No. 6470/2006 & batch, Respondent bank preferred appeal

WA Nos.1268/2014 and batch cases wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court held:-