5747 GI/2023
(3233)
रिज᭭ᮝी सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
ᮧािधकार से ᮧकािशत
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
सा᭡ तािहक
WEEKLY
सं. 38]
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, िसत᭥ बर 17—िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023, शिनवार/भाᮤ 26—आि᳡न 1, 1945
No. 38]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 17—SEPTEMBER 23, 2023, SATURDAY/BHADRA 26—ASVINA 1, 1945
इस भाग मᱶ िभ᭠ न पृ᭬ ठ सं या दी जाती है िजससे ᳰक यह पृथक संकलन के ᱨप मᱶ रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3—उप-ख᭛ ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंᮢालयᲂ (रᭃा मंᮢालय को छोड़कर) ᳇ारा जारी ᳰकए गए सांिविधक आदेश और अिधसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
िवᱫ मंᮢालय
(िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग)
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥बर, 2023
का.आ. 1464.—बीमांकक अिधिनयम, 2006 (2006 का 35) कᳱ धारा 26 कᳱ उप
-
धारा (1) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ शिᲦयᲂ
का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एतारा, ᮰ी सुरजीत काᳶतᭅकेयन, उप सिचव, िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग के ᭭थान पर
त᭜काल ᮧभाव से और अगले आदेशᲂ तक ᮰ी मुकेश कुमार बंसल संयुᲦ सिचव, िवᱫीय सेवाएं िवभाग को भारतीय
बीमांकक सं᭭थान पᳯरषद ᳇ारा गᳯठत अनुशासना᭜मक सिमित के सद᭭य के ᱧप मᱶ नािमत करती है।
[फा. सं. A-11011/04/2022-Ins.I]
िवनोद कुमार, अवर सिचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102023-249371
CG-DL-W-14102023-249371
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102023-249371
CG-DL-W-14102023-249371
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102023-249371
CG-DL-W-14102023-249371
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102023-249371
CG-DL-W-14102023-249371
3234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1464.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Actuaries Act, 2006
(35 of 2006) the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal, Joint Secretary, Department of
Financial Services as member of the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the Council of the Institute of Actuaries
of India vice Shri Surjith Karthikeyan, Deputy Secretary, Department of Financial Services with immediate effect and
until further orders.
[F. No. A-11011/04/2022- Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥बर, 2023
का.आ. 1465.— बीमांकक अिधिनयम, 2006 (2006 का 35) कᳱ धारा 12 कᳱ उप-धारा (2) के खंड (ख)(iii) ᳇ारा ᮧदᱫ
शिᲦयᲂ का ᮧयोग करते ᱟए, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार, एतारा, अ᭟यᭃ, भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम और अ᭟यᭃ, जनरल
इं᭫योरᱶस पि᭣लक सेटर एसोिसएशन को त᭜काल ᮧभाव से भारतीय बीमांकक सं᭭थान पᳯरषद के सद᭭यᲂ के ᱨप मᱶ नािमत
करती है। भारतीय बीमांकक सं᭭थान पᳯरषद के सद᭭यᲂ के ᱨप मᱶ उनका नामांकन संबंिधत संगठनᲂ के अ᭟यᭃᲂ के ᱨप मᱶ
उनके कायᭅकाल के साथ समा᳙ हो जाएगा।
[फा. सं. A-11011/04/2022-बीमा-I]
िवनोद कुमार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1465.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b)(iii) of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Actuaries
Act, 2006 (35 of 2006), the Central Government hereby nominates the Chairperson, Life Insurance Corporation of India and
Chairperson, General Insurance Public Sector Association, as members of the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India
with immediate effect. Their nomination as members of the Council of the Institute of Actuaries would be
co-terminus with their tenure as Chairpersons of the respective organizations.
[F. No. A-11011/04/2022-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2023
.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½
vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls blesa blds Ik'pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu tkjh dh x;h] Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl esa ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k dk- vk- 1220 fnukad
25 uoEcj] 2022 tks Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 27 uoEcj&03 fnlEcj 2022 esa izdkf'kr dh x;h Fkh }kjk ml vf/klwpuk ls
layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa e/; izns'k jkT; esa chuk laLFkkiu ls iudh ¼dkuiqj½ mRrj izns'k rd isVªksfy;e
mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, chuk&iudh ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs”ku fyfeVsM }kjk
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh(
vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 13 tuojh 2022 rd miyC/k djk nh x;h Fkh(
vkSj l{ke izkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns
nh gS(
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik”pkr vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe
ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mles mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofuf”p; fd;k gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj esa mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk 1 }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s ;g
?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj
dk vtZu fd;k tk,(
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3235
vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk iznRr 'kfä;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k
nsrh gS fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds izdk”ku dh fnukad ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,]
lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqä gksdj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa fufgr gksxhA
isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu vf/kfu;e] 1962 dh /kkjk 10 ds v/khu fdlh Hkh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, Hkkjr
isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM iw.kZr;k mRrjnk;h gksxk vkSj ikbiykbu ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh ekeys ij dsUnzh; ljdkj ds
fo#) dksbZ okn] nkok ;k dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha gks ldsxhA
yojlh
24
00
08
59
21
00
08
89
[फा. सं. आर - 11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर -I/ई -29921]
ih- lksekdqekj] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023
S.O. 1466.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
Gas S.O. No. 1220 dated 25th November, 2022 issued under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum & Minerals
pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to said Act), published in
the Gazette of Indian Dated 27th November -03th December -2022, the Central Government declared its intention to
acquire the right of user in the land the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of
laying Bina-Panki pipeline for transportation of Petroleum products from Bina (Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) to Panki
(Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh) by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 13th January,
2023.
And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section (6) of the said Act submitted report
to the Central Government.
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said
land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein.
Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the
Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this
notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting the
Central Government, vest on the date of the publication of the declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
free from all encumbrances.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section
10 of the P & MP Act 1962 and no suit, claims or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any
matter relating to the pipeline.
3236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
TEHSIL: Bhognipur
District: Kanpur Dehat
State: Uttar Pradesh
Name of Village
Survey No.
Area
Hectare
Are
Sqm.
Lawarsi
24
00
08
59
21
00
08
89
TOTAL
00
17
48
[F.No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]
P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.
िव᳒ुत मंᮢालय
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 19 िसत᭥बर, 2023
का.आ. 1467.—कᱶᮤीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकᳱय ᮧयोजनᲂ के िलए ᮧयोग) िनयम, 1976 के
िनयम 10 के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मᱶ िव᳒ुत मंᮢालय के ᮧशासिनक िनयंᮢणाधीन पावर िᮕड कापᲃरेशन ऑफ इंिडया
िलिमटेड के िन᳜िलिखत कायाᭅलयᲂ, िजनके 80 ᮧितशत कमᭅचारीवृंद ने ᳲहंदी का कायᭅसाधक ᭄ान ᮧा᳙ कर िलया है, को
एतद᳇ारा अिधसूिचत करती है:
1.
पावर िᮕड कापᲃरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड
765/400 ᳲवं᭟यांचल पूᳲलंग सब᭭टेशन,
ख᭥हाᳯरया, ितयारा,
ᳲसंगरौली-486885 (म.ᮧ.)
2.
पावर िᮕड कापᲃरेशन ऑफ इंिडया िलिमटेड
400/220 के.वी. भचाऊ उपकᱶᮤ,
िनकट गांधीधाम, ᮕाम/पो᭭ट – भीमासर,
तालुका – अंजार,
िजला – क᭒छ-370240 (गुजरात)
[फा. सं. 11011/07/9/2023-ᳲहंदी]
नरᱶᮤ ᳲसंह, मुय अिभयंता (ᮧभारी रा.भा.)
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1467.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi:
1.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
765/400 Vindhyanchal Pooling Substation,
Khamhariya, Tiara
Singroli-486885 (M.P.)
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3237
2
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
400/220 KV Bhachau Substation,
Near Gandhidham, Vill/PO-Bhimasar, Taluka-Anjar,
Distt.-Kutch-370240 (Gujarat)
[F. No.11011/07/9/2023-Hindi]
NARENDER SINGH, Chief Engineer (In-Charge O.L.)
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (71/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012/514/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2023
S.O. 1468.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 71/2001) 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 workmen.
[No. L-12012/514/2000- 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 31st day of July, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 71/2001
Between:
Sri G. Thomas,
C/o G. Yesupadam,
Railway Station Road,
Gudiwada.
Krishna Dist. 521301.
… Petitioner
And
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, RG-II,
Labbipet,
Vijayawada -520 003.
…..Respondent
3238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-12012/514/2000-IR(B.I) dated 20.6.2001
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada Zone in dismissing services of
Shri G. Thomas, Ex.Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”
After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID 71/2001 and notices were issued to both the workman and the
management.
2.
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:-
“(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;
(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:
3.
The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:
The petitioner, Sri G. Thomas was working as a Messenger in the State Bank of India since 1.1.86. He worked until
1.4.1997 when he was stopped from working based on the orders of the respondent panels the Petitioner belongs to
backward class. It is submitted that the workman joined in the services of the Management Institution as Messenger
on 1986 to rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 5 years, and by dint of hard work till his
services were terminated by oral orders w.e.f. 1.4.1997. It is submitted that the Management of Bank decided to
give a chance to temporarily employed personnel “found suitable for permanent appointment " by wait-listing them,
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3239
by offering permanent appointment or wait-listing till such opportunity arises. It is submitted that on 17.11.1987 a
Settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of Bank
Settlement-1. Under this Settlement, three categories of employees were listed - (a) Those who have completed 240
days in 12 months or less after 1.7.1975; (b) Those who have completed 270.days in any continuous block of 36
calendar months after 1.7.1975; and (c) Those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate in a continuous,
block of 12 calendar months after I.7.1975. Persons who satisfy any of the above three categories were to be
interviewed by a Selection Committee. The said Selection Committee determine suitability of the said candidate for
permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank first had opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workmen,
then prescribed certain qualification and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications. The suitable
candidates were enlisted by a Selection Committee Clause (7) of the said agreement provided that the selected
candidates would be waitlisted in order of their respective categorization and the select panel he valid upto December
1991 Clause (10) of the Settlement specifically provided that henceforth. "there will be no temporary appointments in
the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, “from amongst empanelled candidates
as per existing guidelines of the Bank". Clause (1) of the agreement excluded categorized persons who are ineligible.
The workman further submitted that consequent upon the said agreement and the Draft, a Notification was issued in
the Newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30.8.1988. A written examination followed
by viva-voce in May 1989 was held. A select panel was prepared. As per clause (7) of the Agreement (Settlement-I)
the select panel was to be valid up till December, 1991. It was however, given currency and renewed upto 1997.
However, this did not put to an end the legitimate claims of various persons like the workman. It is submitted that the
Government of India issued Circular No. F-3/3/104/87-IR, dated l6.8.1990. By and under the said Circular, the
Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks including the management were specifically instructed that until the
problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no Bank be permitted to make any temporary
appointments. The workman further submits that some of the persons similarly situated like the workman aggrieved
by the inaction on the part of the Management Bank in not regularizing their services from out of the select panel and
not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P.No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. It is specifically averred in the said writ petition that the management of the Bank had failed to implement
the Settlement and that it violates the various Fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The
Hon'ble High Court by an order dated 5.3.1997 directed the Bank to implement the Settlement as amended from
time to time. It also directed the Bank to carry out the terms of the Settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The
High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement. In view
of the directions granted by the High Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select
panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17.11.1987 under which the panel was valid upto
December, 1991 and on the basis of a Settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto
31.3.1997 under which the panel was valid upto December. 1999. The other agreement dated 16.7.1988 under which
the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the Settlement dated 27.10.1988 whereby the panels were made
alive upto 31.3.1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and
were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the directions given by the High
Court on 5.3.1997 in WP No 4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties. The Bank
issued proceedings dated 25.3.1997, 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management
not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the Bank from 1.4.1997. The said order was
followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the workman and similarly situated candidates have
filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petition No 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the
proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (respondents No.3, 4 and 5)
on 25.3.1997. 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997 as illegal and also non-continuance of the petitioners service by absorbing
them in the services of the Bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought
for specific direction to the Bank to absorb them in service. The workman further submits that in the counter affidavit
filed in the writ petition No. 9206/97, the Bank submitted that it has about 805 Branches in Andhra Pradesh alone. It
has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its Banks, it employed
temporary employees in subordinate cadre. It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the
nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the
Bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice.
It is designed to, on the one hand, keep the employees in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that
benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by
the Bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the Bank would opines that being just fair and
reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice. It is further submitted that
the Bank refers in its counter affidavit to three Settlements dated 17.11.1987, 16.7.1988 and 27. 10.1988. The Bank in
the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated l6.8.1990 stated in its counter affidavit as
follows:
“Government of India. vide its letter dated 16.8.1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to
recruitment aha absorption of temporary employees in public sector bunks. The said guidelines were issued to
implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The
3240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 25-F may be decided by
entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than
240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and 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 or more days after 1.1.1982 would be eligible
for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of
employees who had put in temporary service of 90 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.
As such, it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The
approach paper also specify at para 6 (c) that the Banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary
employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the Bank on or after 1.1.1982 could be considered
for re-employment in terms of the scheme. The respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after
1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the respondent bank to provide permanent
employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para (k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in
full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by
the settlement would mean that the Government of India guide lines would cover only those persons who were
temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise. As such, it is submitted that the respondents
have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked
for less than 90 days. As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines
and not directives".
It is submitted that clause (10) of the Settlement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed or
appointed in the Bank prohibiting any temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlement. Even the
authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled can be
appointed cither for temporary vacancy or permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the
workman and that should be continued till they are absorbed. It is submitted that the respondent Management has
indulged in unfair labour practices. The said practice is evident from the actions of the Management Bank. In case of
similarly situated workmen like Ch. Survanarayana. B. Venkateswarlu and P. Hussain Saheb who are empanelled by
an order dated 3.9.1994 with a direction that their services to be on a very restricted basis against temporary
vacancies for not more than 200 days in any continuous block of 12 months so as not to give them statutory right.
The caption for such selections has been brought to attention that it was for absorption of temporary employees. That
is how the panels for absorption were prepared according to each category ‘A’, ‘ B’ and ‘C’. In view of the
regularization of the workmen who served the Bank ranging between 30 days and above has a right for absorption.
The same is evident from the proceedings issued by the Management wherein they have specifically mentioned that
their cases will be considered for absorption as and when the vacancies arose, till such time they shall be continued on
temporary basis. Contrary to the said proceedings, now the Management indulged in unfair labour practices and
terminated the service of similarly situated candidates like the workman with effect from 1.4.1997. Hence, the said
practice of the Management is highly arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the
constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
workman and other similarly situated workmen who are working as on 31.3.1997 were orally asked not to come to
duty from I.4.1997. In para 3 of the proceedings dated 27.3.1997 it is stated that the panels of temporary employees
on daily wages/casual labour maintained by Zonal Offices stand lapsed by 31.3.1997 and reads as follows:
"3. The panels of temporary employees and daily wagers casual labour maintained by Zonal Offices stand lapsed by
31.3. 1997. Please confirm by return of post that the above instructions are meticulously complied with at your
branch w.e.f 1.4.1997. Consequent on absorption of temporary employees in permanent cadre, it has been decided by
the competent authority that now onwards, no further daily labour or temporary employees/appointments should be
resorted to/engaged/employed. This is very important and should be meticulously followed/implemented invariably
without fail":
It is submitted that there is no indication in any of the settlements as to who is the competent authority to decide about
the validity or the life of the panels or to put an end to it and the so-called DGM is not stated to be the competent
authority. It is submitted that the first settlement fixed the validity of the panels till 31.12. 1991 never used the word
that it is going to be lapsed on 1.1.1992. Similarly when the validity was extended in the subsequent settlements to be
operated at least till 31.3.1997. Sometimes even without the extension of the panels would lapse after 31.3.1997, it is
strange as to how the so-called competent authority or the authorities of the bank thought or decided to lapse them
from 1.4.1997. It is submitted that the balance of unabsorbed candidates like the workman and the similarly situated
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3241
candidates cannot more than 10% of the total empanelled candidates. Therefore, unless the Bank is able to
demonstrate that the balance of unabsorbed candidates as on 31.3.1997 was only 10% of the total empanelled
candidates, the theory of the lists becoming lapsed leaving no scope for absorption becomes an ingenious theory. It
can be shown out of 6,932 empanelled candidates. 3,178 were not absorbed and it should have been more than 10%.
It is submitted that though an empanelled list was pending for absorption of such candidates on the date of first
settlement, new lists of empanelled candidates in three categories were prepared by virtue of the subsequent
settlements which were sought to be implemented with all seriousness. Although such panels could not be fully
exhausted by the date of the last settlement dated 26.4.1991, the existing panels were enlarged by allowing others also
to join such panels with supplementary panels to be used after the earlier panels of temporary employees have been
exhausted. This will only mean that the bank was capable of absorbing all the cand1dates in the panels which were in
existence as on 26.4. 1991. It is submitted that the Banks were directed that recruitment of all temporary employees in
the Clerical or Subord1inate cadres shall be stopped forthwith. In pursuance of such directions an advertisement was
issued in the local Newspapers as per the settlements and based upon that panels were prepared after an interview.
Two salient features of the instructions of the Government are that there must be one tine and whole time settlement to
consider the absorption of such temporary employees in the existing panels and till then no Bank will be permitted to
make any temporary appointment. It is submitted that the action of termination such employees like the workman by
virtue of impugned proceedings without implementing the settlements would be illegal and it would be denial of
unfair labour practice within the meaning of Section 2(a) of Industrial Disputes Act which cannot be allowed to be
perpetuated. It is submitted that discontinuance of workmen after 31.3.1997 to serve in the Bank in any capacity
amounts to retrenchment. It could not have done without notice and it violates Section 25(ff) of I.D. Act and the said
action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter-III of the Constitution of India.Therefore,
the action of D.G.M. the so-called competent authority who has passed the impugned proceedings amounts to
retrenchment of the workman without one month's notice or payment in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of
notice.Thus the impugned proceedings are issued in colourable exercise of power, without jurisdiction, arbitrary,
illegal and are therefore liable to be quashed. The workman submits that though the respondent management
informed in its letter dated 10.10.1990, the Central Government stating that they are implementing the instructions
issued in proceedings dated 16.8.1990. In fact the management failed to implement the same for the reasons best
known to them. It is further submitted that the M.O.U. dated 27.2.1997 said to have been entered into between the
parties does not binds the workmen as it has no legal entity. However, the said M.O.U. has not published anywhere
to brought to the notice of the workmen whose rights are being affected. In fact, when settlements were arrived at in
the year 1987, the Central Government directed the respondent management to give vide publicity by its letter dated
30.11.1987 and 29.12.1987. Accordingly those settlements were brought to the notice of workmen by way of
advertisement. The said process was not followed while entering into M.O.U. dated 27.2.1997, through which the
affected parties like the workman was kept in dark about the lapse of the selected panels. It is further submitted that
the management has failed to implement the selected, panels during its valid tenure. The management adopted the
back door methods contrary to the settlements and filled up the vacancies. The same is evident from the proceedings
dated 18.11.1993, a copy of the same is filed in the material papers and the same may be read as part of the Claim
Petition. It is submitted that the management adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its
instructions dated 16.8.1990 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being
vacancies. The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through Employment Exchange instead
of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman herein. It is pertinent to mention here that the
respondent management sent call letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June.
1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the fact that they are litigating the
issue by way of dispute, the management has refused to engage those candidates, copies of call letters issued are filed
herein along with Claim Petition. The workman reiterates that the panels are meant for absorption but not for
termination. In view of the same a duty is cast upon the respondent management to engage the empanelled
candidates like the workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies.
The workman submitted that ever since the date of his removal from service, he remained unemployee, as he could
not secure any alternative employment inspite of his best efforts. Thus, the action of the respondent Management in
terminating the services of the workman by oral order with effect from 31.3.1997 is unjust, illegal, opposed to
principles of natural justice besides being violative of various provisions of I.D. Act and the same is liable to be set
aside.
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:
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.
3242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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.
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.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3243
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 5th settlement was arrived at on 30th July 1996 requiring the panel to be kept alive up to 31st March, 1997
and this was in respect of the vacancies which became available up to 31st 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.”
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,
3244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 6 documents
which were marked as Ex.W1 to W6. Ex.W1 is the news paper advertisement, Ex.W2 is interview call letter, Ex.W3
is panel list, W4 is service certificate, Ex.W5 is service certificate and Ex.W6 is circular. Ex.W7 is another circular
dated 14.7.199. 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,
Sri G. Thomas, Ex-Messenger 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 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 from bank to attend the interview, workman attended interview and Respondent Bank prepared a 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 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 indicate that the Respondent Bank chose to
favour the employees of second panel List of 1993 for the reason best known to the Respondent Bank.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3245
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. W3 is the document referred List of empanelment Ex.
W4 and W5 are service certificates according to which the workman has worked for total number of 246 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. He further admitted in the cross
examination, “I was appointed as temporary messenger on 1.1.86 for 80 days. I was not sponsored by any
employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular selection process before my appointment as a temporary
messenger. I was called for interview and my name was included in the panel of temporary messengers. The panel
was prepared basing on the no. of days of service put in by the temporary employees. Some of the employees whose
names were included in the panel were given regular employment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel.
I was not given any letter stating that I was terminated from service. I did not give any letter stating that I was
terminated from service and that I want reinstatement into service. I did not work for 240 days in any year in my
entire service in the bank. It is not true to say that I was terminated from service and that I am not getting the work
as the vacancies were filled up by the bank with the temporary employees from the panel. I am not having any
document to show that any of my juniors are continuing in service. I am not having any document to show that any
person who had worked for less no. of days than me was given regular appointment in the bank. ” 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 1991 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.
3246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21.
Further, the workman claimed that his name was included in the empanelment for regularization on
temporary posts after holding interview in 1989, 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. 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 junior to him from the panel. Since, as per settlements arrived at
between the Federation of Bank Employees and Respondent Bank Management, the vacancies for the empanelled
employees of 1989 were available which would arise upto December, 1994 and those vacancies were absorbed from
the panel list 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 as compared to the other employees who were ranked senior to him in
the list, could not be regularized. Therefore, 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 therefore, same is binding on both parties under the provision of Section 18
(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, in view of the above, settlements and awards is also binding on the
workman.
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 enlisting the name of workman, a in the list of employees for regularization, it does not entitle
workman for absorption in the Bank’s service as a permanent employee unless the vacancy is available at the stage
of his seniority. 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 1989, which was prepared for the vacancies arising up to December
1994, its life expired on 31.03.1997, and it could not be extended after the said expiry date. Further, the panel list
exhausted due to from the vacancies available upto 1994 with the absorption of empanelled senior employees. Thus,
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3247
the workman being junior in that panel list seniority could not get regularization / absorption in the service.
Although numerous pleas have been taken by the Petitioner in his claim statement, but as per settled law, here, we are
confined to the reference through which the dispute of dismissal of workman has been referred to the Tribunal for
adjudication. In view of fore gone discussion, workman failed to prove his claim as alleged in his petition against the
dismissal from service as well as claim for regularization and as such, the action of the Respondent bank in
dismissing the services of Sri G. Thomas, Ex.Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified.
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 against the dismissal order and for
regularization of his service in Respondent Bank is unfounded and devoid of merits. Therefore, the workman is not
entitled for any relief of 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 dismissing the
services of Sri G. Thomas, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the Petitioner is
not entitled for any relief as prayed for and consequently petition stands dismissed. Reference is answered
accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 31st day
of July, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri G. Thomas
MW1: Sri Rupakula Prakash Babu
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photocopy of newspaper notification
Ex.W2:
Photocopy of interview call letter 27.7.1989
Ex.W3:
Photocopy of panel list
Ex.W4:
Photocopy of service certificate dt. 9.2.98
Ex.W5:
Photocopy of service certificate
Ex.W6:
Photocopy of Circular
Ex.W7:
Photocopy of circular dated 14.7.1999
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
3248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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
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
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] हैदराबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/26/2006-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1469.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID.No. 95/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/07/2023.
[No. L-22012/26/2006 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present :
Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of June, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 95/2006
Between:
The Branch Secretary,
(Sri N. Kistaiah),
Singareni Collieries Workers Union (AITUC)
Mandamarri Branch,
Mandamarri – 504321.
…...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri division,
Mandamarri – 504321.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri & P.Sudheer Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent :
M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3249
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/26/2006-IR(CM-II) dated
30.10.2006 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide
the question:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in reverting to lower
stage by two SPRAs (Special Piece rate Allowance ) in respect of Sri Ankathi Sailoo is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief is the workman?”
On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No.95/2006 and issued
notices to both the workman and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged their respective
counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.
2.
The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:
It is submitted that workman involved in the present dispute is working in the respondent management since 1986,
the respondent/management has appreciated the workman number of times based on his best performance. It is
submitted that workman involved in the present dispute is elected as a Organizing Secretary of Singareni Company
Collieries Workers Union in the year 1998 and also he was committee member of Mine Committee. It is submitted
that while workman discharging his duties as a Coal Filler at KK-5 Incline, he made representation to the
respondent/management along with union office bearers with regard to increase of height at 42 panel working place
KK-5 Incline, instead of considering the request of the workman the respondent/management started victimization
who were participated in the union activities by way of issuance of charge memo and charge sheets falsely implicating
the workmen into the alleged incident. It is submitted that on 23/09/2000 in 1st shift Coal Fillers were engaged in 42
panel, KK-5 Incline, are not able to discharge their duties as per norms prescribed by the management due to less
height of 42 panel. They have filled only 1Ú2 tub each with great difficulty, the 1st shift coal filler informed to the 2nd
shift coal fillers with regard to same problem on 23/09/2000. The coal fillers of Gang No. 17,18,19 and 20 requested
to distribute them in other working places instead of 42 panel, KK-5 incline working place in 2nd shift. The
workmen’s request was not considered by the respondent/management, and advised the workmen to come for
discussion at the office. It is submitted that coal fillers of Gang No.s 17,18,19 & 20 who were attended duties in 2nd
shift on 23/09/2000, being on 24/09/2000 is play day on 25/09/2000 the coal fillers of Gang No. 17,18,19 & 20
attended their duties in 1st shift, already the said workmen represented before the respondent/management that due to
less height they are not in a position to discharge their duties as instructed by the official of the company, instead of
considering the same again the respondent/management insisted the workmen to do work at same place i.e., 42 panel,
KK-5 incline. It is submitted that instead of considering the requests of the workman as well as the recognized union
the respondent/management has issued charge sheet Dt. 19/10/2000 to the workman involved in the present dispute by
name Sri A.Sailoo, Coal Filler based on false reports of the company officials alleging that he violated the Company
Standing Order No's 25 (11) and 25 (16) on 23/09/2000 in 2nd shift and on 25/09/2000 in 1st shift. The allegations
made against the workman are false and incorrect, the workman involved in the present dispute is a Mine Committee
Member of recognized Union. After receipt of the same workman has submitted his detailed explanation denying the
charges leveled against him. He clearly stated in his explanation that he was Organizing secretary of recognized union
and he has been discharging his duties at 42 panel with less height of working place from the last 23 days, they
representing with respondent/management with regard to said problem at working place. On 23/09/2000 in 1st shift
the respondent/management kept one gang instead of four gangs in 42 panel. The workmen attended the duties at 1st
shift with great difficulty and filled 1/2 tub each. On the same day in 2nd shift due to same problem they requested
with the respondent/management to provide alternate working place, but the respondent/management has not
considered the same, and also stated that due to less height only they could not perform their regular duties, and
requested with respondent/management officials to drop all further proceedings in the matter. Instead of considering
the explanation submitted by the workman the respondent has ordered an enquiry into the alleged incident. The action
on part of the respondent/management in not considering the request of the petitioner union as well as the workman
involved in the present dispute is illegal arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that in the enquiry during the course of
cross examination of MW1, MW2 & MW3 they clearly admitted that they have discussed the problem of less height
in 42 panel with representatives of the SCW Union as well as coal fillers who were working at 42 panel KK 5 Incline,
it shows that there was a problem at the time of discharging the duties due to less height. Hence, there was no lapse
on part of the workman while discharging his duties on 23.9.2000 and 25.9.2000. It is submitted that the delinquent
Mr. Sailu deposed in the enquiry that he has been discharging his duties since 1986 in the Respondent management
without any remarks and he was the organizing secretary of SCW Union (AITUC) and represented number of
problems with respondent/management officials from time to time and brought amicable solutions by fairly discussing
with officials of the company. He further stated that due to less height at 42 panel the workman facing problems at
the time of discharging their duties, on 23/09/2000 during the 2nd shift he along with other coal fillers of Gang 17 to
20 requested for alternate working places expressing difficulty to work at 42 panel was discussed with the officials.
On 23/09/2000 during 3rd shift only Badli Coal Fillers were deployed in 42 panel whereas Coal Fillers of 17 to 20
3250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gangs were not posted in 42 panel. On 25/09/2000 the workmen (Coal Fillers) were represented the Under Manager
with regard to problems facing by the coal fillers. Instead of considering the same the respondent/management has
declared lay off and a notice was displayed on notice board and the respondent/management has not accepted the
request of the coal fillers. He further stated that on 26/09/2000 in 1st shift the General Manager visited the working
place at 42 panel and ordered to increase the height of the 42 panel working place. It is submitted that Sri. P.
Sambaiah WW1 deposed in the enquiry that there is problem of less height in working places in 42 panel of coal
fillers of Gang No. 17 to 20 and they are unable to fill the tubs and facing lot of difficulty due to less height. On
23/09/2000 due to said problem only the workman have filled only 1Ú2 tub each, and requested in 2nd shift to change
their working place and same was not considered by the respondent/management. All the workmen attended their
duties. Sri. P. Sambaiah further stated that the office bearers of the petitioner union and well as the coal fillers
discussing the issue before the officials of the respondent/management on 25/09/2000 all of sudden the
respondent/management displayed lock out notice on Notice Board in 1st Shift much before scheduled time of 1st
Shift, and also stated that the workman involved in the present dispute by name Mr. Sailoo did not play any active
role in guiding the Workmen to go on strike. It is submitted that the Respondent management himself declared lay off
in the 1st shift and the same was displayed on Notice Board, without consulting workmen as well as the office bearers
of the Petitioner Union. Hence, the question of the workman involved in the present dispute went on strike is does not
arise. It is submitted that Sri. Pothuganti Posham Coal Filler Gang No. 17 (WW2) deposed that the coal filler could
not fill more than one tub per day because of less height in 42 panel on 23/09/2000 and 25/09/2000. He also stated
that the workman involved in the present dispute did not force anybody to go on strike, he was not alone responsible
for the strike. It is submitted that petitioner union as well as delinquent in the enquiry that no fault in the incidents
that took place on 23/09/2000 and 25/09/2000 at 42 panel. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the
case the enquiry officer submitted his report on 10/09/2002 that charges levelled against the delinquent held proved.
The enquiry officer has not given reasonable opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner union. There is no
evidence before the enquiry officer to show that the delinquent has committed irregularities as alleged in the charge.
Hence the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and biased. It is submitted that the enquiry officer observed in
the enquiry that during the course of cross examination, the Presenting Officer replied that he could not produce the
details of number of workmen participated in the strike and number of workmen locked out in 1st shift as the office
records were burnt by miscreants on 14.5.2001. It is submitted that without considering the above statement of the
management witnesses as well as the Petitioner union witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report that the
charge held proved against the delinquent. The action on part of the Enquiry Officer in submitting findings that the
charges held proved against the delinquent is illegal, perverse and biased and no evidence before the Enquiry Officer
to show that the charges are held proved against the delinquent. After receipt of the enquiry report, the delinquent has
submitted his comments on 18.11.2002 stating that he has not committed any irregularities as alleged in the charge
and requested the Enquiry Officer to drop all further proceedings in the matter. Based on the perverse findings of the
Enquiry Officer, the General Manager, Mandamarri area straight away passed impugned proceedings dated 6.3.2003
without issuance of Show Cause Notice proposed punishment, reverting the workman involved in the present dispute
to lower stage by two SPRAS with cumulative effect w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and also imposed penalty to take effect from
1.4.2003 he will not be eligible to draw two increments/SPRAS is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that as
per rules contemplated under the Departmental enquiries, after receipt of the comments from the delinquent the
Disciplinary Authority has issued Show Cause Notice with regard to proposed punishment against the delinquent. But
in the given case, the Respondent/management has not followed the said rule straight away imposed major penalty
against the workmen involved in the present dispute. Hence, the action on part of the Respondent in issuing impugned
proceedings dated 6.3.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and on this ground alone the impugned proceedings dated
6.3.2003 is liable to be vitiated. After passing the impugned proceedings dated 6.3.2003, workmen submitted review
application to the Appellate Authority and Director (PA&W), Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem to
reconsider his case. The Appellate Authority also without considering the facts and circumstances of the case rejected
the review application in a mechanical manner. No valid reasons assigned in the rejection order. It is submitted that
thereafter the Petitioner Union moved conciliation application before the conciliation officer i.e., Assistant
Commissioner of Labour Central, Ramagundam and the conciliation officer conducted several joint meetings to solve
the issue. But, the Management has not come forward to settle the issue. The conciliation officer submitted his
report that the management has not come forward to settle the issue, hence conciliation proceedings ended in failure.
It is submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority has not considered the past service record
of workman before passing punishment order Dt. 6.3.2003. It is submitted that there is no evidence before the
disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority to show that workman has committed irregularities as alleged in
the charge sheet. Petitioner union clearly established in the enquiry that there is no lapse on part of the workman the
alleged incidents took place on 23/09/2000 and 25/09/2000 due to less height at panel No. 42 KK-5 Incline only the
workmen (coal fillers) could not fill the tubs as norms prescribed by the respondent/management. It is submitted that
after passing the impugned order dated 6.3.2003 the workman involved in the present dispute is not getting
incremental benefits, even no lapse on the part of him the incidents took place on 23.9.2000 and 25.9.2000. It is
therefore prayed to declare the action on part of the Respondent/Management in imposing major penalty vide
proceedings dated 6.3.2003 against Sri A.Sailoo, Coal Filler, is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3251
the consequently direct the Respondents to release all the incremental benefits attendant benefits to which the
workman entitled to.
3. The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
The Respondent Management refuting the averments of the Petitioner has submitted that Mr. Ankati Sailu, was
appointed into the services of the respondent's Company on 06.02.1986 as Badli filler and he was later drafted as Coal
filler with effect from 30.03.1989. Presently, he is working as Coal cutter in Category-V pay scale with effect from
01.09.2005 at KK.5 Incline. The averment of the petitioner union that while workman discharging his duties as a Coal
filler at KK.5, he made representation to the respondent/management along with union office bearers with regard to
increase of height at 42 panel working place at KK.S Incline, instead of considering the request of the workman the
respondent/management started victimizing those who participated in the union activities by way of issuance of
charge memo and charge sheets falsely implicating the workmen into the alleged incident, is baseless and hence
denied. Respondent contended that on 23.09.2000 in II shift Coal fillers of Gang No.17, 18, 19 &20 booked their IN
muster and stayed on surface only while other Coal fillers of the shift gone down the Mine, without communicating
their demand. When the Head Overman P.Janardhan informed the matter to Asst. Manager Ujjwal Tah, who in turn
sent message to Bonthu Prasad, Coalfiller and representative of petitioner union, but he did not turn up on the pretext
that he was discussing with Coal fillers. At that time B.Sudarshan Kumar of the petitioner union along with some
others went to the Asst. Manager and discussed about the difficulties in working places of 42 panel. During the course
of discussions they informed the problem of less height and at that time Manager of the Mine had come to the place
that after listening to all, suggested for regrading the track line and advised the Head Overman to give tubs filling
account for Malma also. Then the Head Overman informed that the fillers were demanding for acting muster and not
agreed for tub accounting for which the Mine Manager had agreed to give acting muster to two Coal fillers in the gang
of 10 Coal fillers and after discussions he agreed for acting musters to 05 out of a gang of 10 Coal Fillers, but the Coal
Fillers being adamant without accepting the gesture of the Mine Manager left the Mine premises without carrying out
any work. Contrary to the above fact, the petitioner union is misrepresenting the facts claiming that the Coal Fillers of
Gang No. 17,18,19 and 20 requested for distributing them to other working places instead of 42 panel and that their
demand was not considered and respondent/management advised them to come for discussion. The Petitioner union
has admitted that in 1st shift of 23.09.2000 Coal fillers deployed at 42 panel filled 1Ú2 tub and in such case the Coal
Fillers of II shift too could have filled the similar amount of coal and could have earned wages for the work done by
them instead they chose the wrong line of leaving the mine premises though the Mine Manager had offered the acting
muster and to account malma removal also into tub account. The said facts corroborate with the statement of the
Management Witness Y.Ashok Kumar. Under Manager of KK-3A Section of KK.5 Incline. The workman witness
Potharajula Posham in his statement before the Enquiry Officer at the time of cross examination stated that the
problem of less height would be rectified by removing the Malma in the floor by Coal Fillers themselves some times
and by giving musters to Coal Fillers with the permission of shift Overmen/Officers. This indicates the disregard of
the workmen concerned to find-out way-out for the alleged problem. It is submitted that employees working in shifts
will be rotated to other shifts on weekly basis. In this process, the employees in ll shift during one week will come to I
shift in the next week, while the III shift workers will come to l shift and the I shift workers will go to III shift. In this
process, the Coal Fillers of Gang Nos. l7, 18, 19& 20 who were in II shift on 23.09.2000 came to I shift during the
week that commenced from 25.09.2000 since 24th September, 2000 being Sunday (weekly day of holiday). The
contention of the petitioner union that instead of considering the already made representation of the Coal Fillers of
these gangs, the respondent/management insisted the workmen to do the work at the same place i.e. 42 panel, is
denied. The Coal Fillers of the relevant gangs were informed about the rectification work undertaken on Sunday the
weekly day of rest and yet the Coal Fillers did not go down the Mine and continued to have discussions with the Mine
authorities and though distributed by the Overman concerned they did not go down the Mine, while the KK.S section
workmen of KK.5 Incline resumed work. By the act of the Coal Fillers concerned lead by Ankati Sailu, compelled
the management of the Mine to declare lockout to other sections of workmen of KK.3A Section of KK.S Incline. The
Workman witness P.Posham, during cross examination by Presenting Officer confirmed that the Overman had
informed them of the rectification work carried out on Sunday (Playday – weekly day of rest) but they did not believe
him. He further submitted that the work persons went in procession to General Manager's Office along with the effigy
of officers. It is also established from the statements of Management witnesses and workman witnesses that Ankati
Sailu had taken lead in the incidents. It is clear that though the alleged problem was attended to on Sunday and having
knowledge of the said fact when the Overman explained them the fact, the concerned Coal fillers did not go down the
Mine in I shift of 25.09.2000 who were lead by Ankati Sailu. Therefore, the allegation that they were insisted to do
work at the same place i.e. 42 panel, is proved to be incorrect. It is to submit that the contention of the petitioner
union that the recognized union as well as the workmen requested the respondent/management with regard to increase
of height of 42 panel but management not considered the same is incorrect. The work persons concerned brought the
alleged difficulty to the notice of Mine authorities only on 23.09.2000 which is evident from reply given by the
Presenting Officer during the cross examination by charge sheeted worker. It is to submit that Ankati Sailu the
workman concerned booked his IN muster in II shift on 23.09.2000 and refused to work in the allotted working place
i.e. 42 panel and left the mine premises. On 25,09.2000 in I shift also he booked his IN muster and again refused to
3252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
work in 42 panel and he along with all other Coal Fillers of KK3A Section of KK.5 Incline struck work illegally in I
shift of 25.09.2000 even though Coal Industry has been declared as Public Utility Service by the Government of India
duly prohibiting strikes in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Since his acts constituted misconduct under
Company's Standing Orders No.25.11 and 25.16 he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No.K5/2000//13CS/271,
dated 19.10.2000 and the relevant clauses of the Standing Orders read as under:
25.11 : Going on illegal strike either singly or with other workmen without giving 14 days previous notice.
25.16 : Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or any other Act or any Rule or Regulations or by laws there under."
The charge sheeted employee on acknowledging the charge sheet submitted his written explanation dated 23.10.2000.
Since the reply given by the charge sheeted employee was found to be unsatisfactory an enquiry was ordered into the
charges levelled against him. Accordingly, Enquiry Officer held enquiry proceedings on 20.03.2001, 11.04.2001,
18.04.2001, 10.08.2001, 23.08.2001, 03.09.2001, 09.11.2001 and On 16.03.2002 giving full and fair opportunity to
the charge sheeted employee to defend his case. The charge sheeted employee fully participated in the Enquiry
Proceedings. From the depositions of Presenting Officer and Management witnesses Y.Ashok Kumar and Uijwal Tah,
the Coal Fillers of Gang Nos. 17,18,19 and 20 refused to go down the Mine in II shift of 23.09.2000 and in I shift of
25.09.2000 they struck work illegally. It was also evident that though the Presenting Officer assured to take steps
required for increasing the height of the panel and advised the Coal Fillers to come forward in this context, no one
came forward. As per the statement of Uijwal Tah, Management Witness, it was clear that A.Sailu and B. Prasad,
generally represent the problems of Coal Fillers and they both belong to Gang No.17. As per his statement A.Sailu
and B.Prasad approached him along with other Coal Fillers and represented the problem in Panel No.42 but they did
not agree to the suggestions made and did not go down the Mine. The WW-1 P.Sambaiah said that generally the
problems are represented by A.Sailu and B.Prasad and in reply to the question by Presenting Officer he submitted that
he generally goes to acting job as Support Mazdoor and he admitted that it was not correct to go in procession with
effigies to G.M's office shouting slogans against Officers. The charge sheeted employee at concluding point of the
enquiry proceedings stated that he has been working since 1986 and almost all workmen are working happily and
contributing to the best performance and profit of the company and absolutely there were no problems KK.5 in view
of improved relations of the workmen and management and that he was happy to say that KK.S Mine got National
Safety Award for the year 2000 and with better relations mine problems were being discussed and solved with mutual
understanding and that there were no illegal strikes on mine level issues since 26.9.2000 till date and added that he got
no vested interest to call for any illegal strike in I shift on 25.09.2000 and requested to excuse him since he was
charged for being a representative of the union. He assured that he shall not give chance for such things in future and
that he feel sorry for what had happened in I shift of 25.09.2000. Thus it can be concluded that the charge sheeted
worker admitted his guilty, therefore, the contention of the petitioner union that A.Sailu did not play any active role in
guiding the workers to go on strike is proved to be incorrect. The further contention of the petitioner that the
respondent management itself declared lay off in I shift and displayed on notice board without consulting workmen as
well as the office bearers of the petitioner union is incorrect. Since the Coal Fillers concerned despite explaining about
the rectification work undertaken on 24.09.2000 (Sunday) refused to go down the Mine as such under the provisions
of as the work persons concerned did not go down the Mine within 2 hours from the commencement of shift, lockout
was declared. It was the charge sheeted worker and other Coal fillers lead by him caused way for declaring lockout as
per statute. It is submitted that it is true that the Presenting Officer and other management witnesses informed that the
Coal Fillers and Leaders of SCWU held discussions with Mine authorities on the issue of raising the height of the
pane No.42. It is also to submit that the Presenting Officer in his reply during cross examination by charge sheeted
employee stated he came to know about the alleged problem only on 23.09.2000 and advised them to come along with
him to the work spot to identify the problem, if any, and take corrective steps, but the Coal Fillers did not heed to his
advice and left the mine premises in II shift on 23.09.2000. Further, on 25.09.2000 when the Overman informed of the
corrective steps taken on 24.09.2000 and advised them to go for work, then also they refused to go down and on the
contrary forced the management to inflict the provisions of Section 24(3) of LD.Act 1947 by participating in an illegal
strike and lead a procession to GM's Office with effigies of Officers. If there was really any problem, that could have
been resolved through negotiations at proper way but they cannot resort to an illegal strike. The Workman Witnesses
admitted that the regrading of the floor was the work of Coal Fillers. It is to submit that the petitioner union has been
projecting the charge sheeted employee as a disciplined personality and that also holding the post of Organizing
Secretary of S.C.Workers Union (AITUC) and that he was representing number of problems with
respondent/management officials from time to time and brought amicable solutions by fairy discussing with officials,
this does not mean that the charge sheeted employee can participate and organize an illegal strike for 3 shifts and
cause loss of wages to other employees and by way of production loss to the Company. If he was finding solutions so
amicably for different problems from time to time, he could have heeded to the advice of Presenting Officer when it
was advised to come with him to the working place to find out the problem and take corrective steps and could have
advised other Coal Fillers to go down the Mine in I shift on 25.09.2000 when the Overman had informed of the
activity undertaken on 24.09.2000 (Sunday), instead he participated in an illegal strike, organised a procession with
effigies of Officers to General Manager's office. Thus his contribution in resolving the issues amicably is legitimately
doubtful. The Petitioner Union might have forgotten conveniently the provisions of Sec. 24(3) of ID.Act 1947 and
also the adamant attitude of the Coal Fillers in going down the Mine and attending to works in I shift of 25.09.2000 at
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3253
panel No.42. The charge sheeted employee and his witnesses had admitted during the enquiry that they resumed work
and worked at the same place when General Manager of the Area visited the place and passed required instructions,
but they did not pay any attention to the similar assurances by the Mine authorities. As an Organizing Secretary of the
petitioner Union, A.Sailu could have attended to duties normally and could have brought the same to the notice of
Area General Manager instead of participating in an illegal strike. It is submitted that no lay off was declared but
lockout to other categories of employees was declared since a section of work persons struck work illegally, invoking
the provisions of Sec. 24 (3) of I.D.Act, 1947. As regards deployment of Badlifillers in II shift on 25.09.2000 it is to
submit that Badli is a substitute and hence it is the prerogative of the respondent management to deploy them which
the Union cannot question. It is to submit that P.Sambaiah, WW-l was going on acting job in the category of support
man which was admitted by himself in the cross examination and he also added that he did not attend duties in II shift
of 23.09.2000 in support of other Coal Fillers of Machine No.9 and also admitted that he was on acting panel of
Support Mazdoor and attended to filling work on very less number of days and also admitted in the cross examination
that he did not see the practical problems of 42 panel of less height being faced by Coal Fillers. He also admitted that
in I shift on 25.09.2000 he came to the Mine but did not attend works because of strike and procession and admitted
that it was not correct to go in procession to G.M office with effigies, raising slogans against officers. The allegation
that when the Office bearers of the Petitioner Union and Coal Fillers were discussing the issue all of a sudden the
respondent/management displayed lockout notice in I shift much before scheduled time, is incorrect. It is a known fact
not only to the petitioner union but also to the work persons concerned that if they do not resume duties within two
hours of commencement of shift and continue to stay on surface without going down the Mine, they will be
considered as on illegal strike and other section of workers who are not parties to strike will be declared lockout. To
declare lockout under the provisions of the I.D.Act, 1947, the respondent management need not obtain permission or
consult the union as well as work persons. It is to submit that the WW-2 Mr.P.Posham, admitted that on 25.09.2000
when he came to duty, the Overman informed them that problem of less height was attended to on 24,09.2000, but
they went to discuss the issue with Manager. He, during cross examination admitted that the problem of low height
can be addressed by the removal of Malma in the floor and that this was done some times by Coal Fillers themselves
and some times by giving musters to Coal Fillers with the permission of Shift Overman/Officers. He further admitted
that Mine Manager had advised to take 2 or 3 musters in II shift of 23.09.2000 but they did not agree for the same.
Thus it can be said that the Coal Fillers knowing pretty well about their duties and practices did not follow the same
and on the contrary claims that respondent management declared lockout. It is to submit that the contention of the
petitioner union that the delinquent as well as petitioner union established in the enquiry that no fault was there with
the workmen for the incidents that took place on 23.09.2000 and 25.09,2000 and without considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, enquiry officer submitted report stating that the charges were proved, is totally incorrect.
Every one admitted that the workers (Coal Fillers) did not work in II shift on 23.09.2000 and also went in procession
with effigies of officers to GM's office in I shift of 25.09.2000. The charge sheeted employee himself admitted that he
do not have any vested interest to call for any illegal strike in I shift on 25.09 2000 and yet requested the management
to excuse him for this time and assured that he shall not give chance for such things in future and expressed his
sorrows for what had happened in I shift of 25.09.2000. The allegation of the petitioner union that the Enquiry Officer
did not give reasonable opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner is denied. It is to submit that the enquiry
officer had considered the statement made by the charge sheeted employee at the concluding stage of the enquiry
proceedings. While stating that all workers were working happily and contributing to the best performance and getting
profits of the Company with improved relations etc., the workman himself requested for excuses from management
and assured that he shall not give chance for such things in future, which is a clear admittance of fault by the charge
sheeted employee. It is to submit that it is a fact that a fire accident had taken place which was an act of some
miscreants at KK.S Pit Office reducing the records to ashes. Because of this the Presenting Officer could not produce
the relevant records. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry proceedings following all the principles of natural justice
and the Charge sheeted employee took part in the enquiry proceedings fully without any sort of difficulty and
inconvenience and at the concluding stage of the proceedings he himself admitted his mistake and requested to
excuse. The charge sheeted employee was supplied copies of enquiry report, proceedings etc., vide letter
No.MMR/PER/D/072/4357, dated 20.02.2002 to enable him to make his written representation against the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. The charge sheeted employee submitted his written representation dated 08.11.2002 wherein he
did not dispute the conduct of Enquiry Proceedings and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Since the enquiry
proceedings were conducted properly and on the basis of evidence and considering the depositions of the Presenting
Officer, Management witnesses and also that of the charge sheeted employee and his witnesses, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report holding A.Sailu, guilty of the charges levelled and hence the allegation of the petitioner union
that based on the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, the General Manager of Mandamari Area straight away
passed proceedings dated 06.03.2003 without issuance of show cause notice etc., is totally incorrect. It is to submit
that the misconduct committed and proved against the charge sheeted employee is of serious nature and attracts severe
punishment. However, the respondent management took a lenient view and imposed the penalty of reversion to lower
stage by two Special Piece Rate Allowances, with cumulative effect, with effect from 01.04.2003 vide order
No.MMR/PER/D/072/924, dated 06.03.2003. It is to submit that already the respondent management supplied a copy
of the enquiry proceedings and report and after examining the representation given by the charge sheeted employee
against the findings of the enquiry officer penalty order was released. After issuance of penalty order dtd.06.03.2003,
3254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ankati Sailu, submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority dated 03.07.2003. After considering the said appeal the
No.CRP/PER/R/D/94/415, dated 12.03.2004 confirmed the Director (PA&W) vide letter penalty of reversion to lower
stage in present scale by reducing 2 SPRAs with cumulative effect, vide letter No.MMR/PER/D/072/924, dated
6.3.2003. The petitioner union represented the case of the worker concerned Ankati Sailu, before the Asst. Labour
Commissioner (Central), Mancherial and Assistant Labour Commissioner© took conciliation proceedings. The
conciliation proceedings ended in failure on 30.11.2005 and the Conciliation Officer submitted his report vide letter
No.1/1/2005-ALC/MCI, dated 30.11.2005 to the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The
misconduct committed and proved against Ankati Sailu was serious in nature and deserves severe punishment of
dismissal. However, taking into account the past service of the charge sheeted employee and in order to provide an
opportunity to the party to realize his mistake and improve himself the lesser punishment of reversion to lower stage
by reducing two Special Piece Rate Allowances (SPRAS) was imposed with effect from 01.04.2003. It is to submit
that sufficient evidence was adduced by the Presenting Officer and his witnesses during the course of enquiry. From
the statement of the charge sheeted employee and also from the depositions of his witnesses it was conclusively
established that Ankati Sailu participated in an illegal strike 25.09.2000 and that he refused to attend to duties in II
shift of 23.09.2000 and it was also established that the work persons concerned did not accept the offer made by the
mine authorities to find out a solution to the alleged problem of low height at panel No.42 in KK.S Incline. Without
prejudice to the rights of the respondent management to deny later, if the contention of the petitioner union is
considered to be true that due to less height the Coal Fillers could not fill tubs as per norms on 23/09/2000 and
25/09/2000, participating in an illegal strike and going in a procession with effigies of officers, raising slogans
against them to GM's Office is not the admissible method of expressing discontentment, dissatisfaction or resentment.
Further, in his representation to appellate authority, the party submitted that because of unrest among workmen
against the rigorous behaviour of the then Mine Manager of KK.5, taking advantage of the alleged problem, all Coal
Fillers and workers struck work. Thus it can be concluded that under the guise of less height at Panel No.42 of KK.5
Incline, to take avenge against the then Mine Manager, the charge sheeted employee participated and organized illegal
strike and also organized procession with effigies raising slogans against the officers of the KK.S Mine, which by any
means and by any standards is not admissible and, acceptable. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry proceedings
following all the principles of natural justice and the Charge sheeted employee took part in the enquiry proceedings
fully reasonable opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner. Presenting Officer could not produce the relevant
records without any sort of difficulty and inconvenience and at the concluding stage of the proceedings he himself
admitted his mistake and requested to excuse. The charge sheeted employee was supplied copies of enquiry report,
proceedings etc., vide letter No.MMR/PER/D/072/4357, dated 20.02.2002 to enable him to make his written
representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The charge sheeted employee submitted his written
representation dated 8.11.2002 wherein he did not dispute the conduct of Enquiry Proceedings and also the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. Since the enquiry proceedings were conducted properly and on the basis of evidence and
considering the depositions of the Presenting Officer, Management witnesses and also that of the charge sheeted
employee and his witnesses the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding A.Sailu, guilty of the charge leveled. It
is to submit that the misconduct committed and proved against the charge sheeted employee is of serious nature and
attracts severe punishment. However, the respondent management took a lenient view and imposed the penalty of
reversion to lower stage by two Special Piece Rate Allowances, with cumulative effect, with effect from 01.04.2003
vide order No.MMR/PER/D/072/924, dated 06.03.2003. After issuance of penalty order dtd.06.03.2003, Ankati Sailu,
submitted appeal to the Appellate Authority dated 03.07.2003. After considering the said appeal the appellate
authority, Director (PA&W) vide letter No. CRP/ PER/R/D/94/415, dated 12.03.2004 confirmed the penalty of
reversion to lower stage in present scale by reducing 2 SPRAS with cumulative effect, vide Order No. MMR/ PER
/D/072/924, dated 6.3.2003. The misconduct committed and proved against Ankati Sailu was serious in nature and
deserves severe punishment of dismissal. Further, in his representation to appellate authority, workman submitted
that because of unrest among workmen against the rigorous behaviour of the then Mine Manager of KK.5, taking
advantage of the alleged problem, all Coal fillers and workers struck work. Thus it can be concluded that under the
guise of less height at Panel No.42 of KK.5 Incline, to take avenge against the then Mine Manager, the charge sheeted
employee participated and organized illegal strike and also organized procession with effigies raising slogans against
the officers of the KK.5 Mine, which is not admissible and acceptable. Therefore, it is prayed that to dismiss the
claim petition as devoid of merits.
4.
The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent Management is held legal and valid vide order dated
16.8.2018.
5.
Heard arguments of both parties under Sec.11A of the Act Perused the record.
6.
Both the parties have submitted their written submissions.
7.
On the basis of pleadings and written submissions made by both the parties following points emerge
for consideration in the present matter:-
I.
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and valid?
II.
Whether the action of the Respondent Management by reverting to lower stage by two SPRAs
(Special Piece Rate Allowance) to Sri Ankathi Sailoo , workman is legal and justified?
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3255
III.
Whether workman has committed misconduct in breach of Company’s Standing Orders No.25.11
and 25.16?
IV.
Whether the imposition of punishment to workman of reversion to lower stage by two SPRAs is
disproportionate and not commensurate to the misconduct alleged to be committed by the workman?
V.
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
FINDINGS:
8.
Point No.I: This point pertains to the question of validity and legality of the domestic enquiry conducted
against the workman by Respondent Management. The validity and legality of the domestic enquiry has been held
legal and valid by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.2.2011.
Thus, this point is answered accordingly.
9.
Points No.II & III: Petitioner’s counsel submitted that on 23/09/2000 in first shift Coal Fillers engaged for
work in 42 panel, KK-5 Incline, were not able to discharge their duties as per norms prescribed by the management
due to less height of 42 panel. The workman have filled only 1Ú2 tub each with great difficulty. The 1st shift coal filler
informed to the 2nd shift coal fillers with regard to said problem on 23/09/2000. It is further submitted that the coal
fillers of Gang Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 requested to distribute them in other working places instead of 42 panel, KK-5
incline. But the Respondent Management did not consider their request and advised the workmen to come for
discussion at the office. Workman further submitted that though the workmen coal filler of Gang Nos. 17,18, 19 &
20 who attended duties in 2nd shift on 23/09/2000, being on 24/09/2000 is play day, on 25/09/2000 attended their
duties in 1st shift, and they said that the respondent management has been informed that due to less height of Panel
42 they are not in a position to discharge their duties, but, instead of considering their difficulty respondent
management insisted the workmen to do work at same place i.e., 42 panel, KK-5 incline. It is submitted that instead
of considering the request of the workman as well as the recognized union the respondent management has issued
charge sheet dated 19/10/2000 to the workman involved in the present dispute which was based on false reports of
the company officials alleging that he violated the Company Standing Order No's 25 (11) and 25 (16) on 23/09/2000
in 2nd shift and on 25/09/2000 in 1st shift. The allegation made against the workman are false and incorrect. The
workman is a Mine Committee Member of recognized Union. After receipt of the charge sheet workman submitted
his detailed explanation denying the charges leveled against him. He clearly stated in his explanation that he was
Organizing secretary of recognized union and has been discharging his duties at 42 panel with less height of working
place from the last 23 days and they represented many times to respondent/management with regard to said problem
at working place. It is submitted that on 23/09/2000 in 1st shift the respondent management kept one gang instead of
four gangs in 42 panel and workmen attended the duties at 1st shift with great difficulty. On the same day in 2nd shift
due to same problem they requested the respondent management to provide alternate working place, but the
respondent management refused. Instead of considering, the explanation submitted by the workman the respondent
Management has ordered an enquiry into the alleged incident. The action on part of are the respondent/management in
not considering the request of the petitioner union as well as the workman involved in the present dispute is illegal
arbitrary unjust. It is further submitted that during enquiry MW1 MW2 & MW3 clearly admitted that they have
discussed the problem of less height in 42 panel with representatives of the SCW Union as well as coal fillers who
were working at 42 panel KK 5 Incline, it goes to show that there was a problem at the time of discharging the duties
and there was no lapse on part of the workman while discharging his duties on 23.9.2000 and 25.9.2000. It is further
submitted that on 25/09/2000 the workmen (Coal Fillers) had represented the Under Manager with regard to
problems faced by the coal fillers. But instead of considering the same the respondent management has declared lay
off and a notice was displayed on notice board. Further on 26/09/2000 in 1st shift the General Manager visited the
working place at 42 panel and ordered to increase the height of the 42 panel working place. The problem of less
height has been proved by the witness WW1 Sri P. Sambaiah. The witness has stated that on 23.9.2000 due to the
said problem only the workman have filled a half tub and requested in 2nd shift to change their working place and
same was not considered by the respondent management. All the workmen attended their duties as per schedule. It is
also submitted that office bearers of the petitioner union and as well as the coal fillers discussing the issue before the
officials of the respondent management on 25/09/2000, all off sudden the respondent/management displayed lock out
notice on Notice Board in 1st shift much before scheduled time of 1st Shift, and also stated that the workman involved
in the present dispute by name Mr. Sailoo. Workman did not play any active role in guiding the workmen to go on
strike. In this regard, the Respondent Management himself declared lay-off in the first shift without consulting the
workman as well as the office bearers of the Petitioner union. Hence, the question of the workman involved in the
present dispute going on strike does not arise. It is also submitted that the action on the part of the Enquiry Officer in
submitting his report on 10/09/2002 that charges leveled against the delinquent held proved was without any evidence.
It is further submitted that on the basis of perverse and biased findings of the Enquiry Officer, the General Manager,
Mandamarri area passed impugned proceedings dated 6.3.2003 without issuance of Show Cause Notice the proposed
punishment, reverting the workman involved in the present dispute to lower stage by two SPRAS with cumulative
effect w.e.f.1.4.2003 and also imposed penalty to take effect from 1.4.2003 he will not be eligible to draw two
increments/SPRAS. The action on part of the General Manager, Mandamarri area in reverting the workman to lower
3256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
stage by two SPRAS with cumulative effect w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and also imposed penalty to take effect from 1.4.2003 he
will not be eligible to draw two increments/SPRAS is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is also submitted that Petitioner
union moved conciliation application before the conciliation officer i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Labour Central,
Ramagundam on 27.1.2005 to intervene in the matter for illegal punishment order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the
General Manager, Mandamarri Area. But, the Management has not come forward to settle the issue. Hence, the
conciliation proceedings, ended in failure and the same was submitted to the competent authority on 30.11.2005.
Further it is submitted that there was no evidence before the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority to
show that workman has Committed irregularities as alleged in the charge sheet. Petitioner union clearly established in
the enquiry there is no lapse on part of the workman the alleged incident took place on 23/09/2000 and 25/09/2000.
10.
On the other hand, Respondent’s submit that the charge sheeted employee on concluding point of enquiry
proceeding has stated that he has been working since 1986. At KK-5 incline almost all workers were working
happily and contributing to the best performance and profit of the company. There were no problems at KK-5 incline
in view of the improved relations of the workmen and Management. They were happy to say that KK-5 incline mine
got National Safety award for the year 2000. Further, workman has stated that, with better relations, the minor
problems are being discussed and solved with mutual understanding. There were no illegal strikes on mine level
issue since 26.9.2000 till today. It is stated by workman that he has got no vested interest to call for any illegal
strike in 1st shift on 25.9.2000 and requested to excuse him since he was charged for being a representative of the
union. The delinquent in that enquiry also stated that he assures that he shall not give chance for such things in
future. He feels sorry for what has happened in 1st shift on 25.9.2000. The Respondent’s counsel submit that from the
above statement of workman in the enquiry, it can be concluded that the charge sheeted worker admitted his guilty,
therefore, the contention of the Petitioner union that A. Sailu did not play any active role in guiding the workers to go
on strike is proved to be incorrect. Respondent also submitted that the contention of the Petitioner union that
Respondent Management declared lay-off in I shift and displayed on notice board without consulting workmen as
well as the office bearers of the Petitioner union is incorrect. Further it is submitted by the Respondent counsel that
since the Coal fillers concerned despite explaining about the rectification work undertaken on 24.09.2000 (Sunday)
refused to go down the Mine and as such under the provisions of Section 24(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the
workman concerned did not go down the Mine within two hours from the commencement of shift, lockout was
declared. It was the charge sheeted worker and other Coal fillers lead by him caused way for declaring lockout as per
statute. It is also submitted that the Presenting Officer and other management witnesses informed that the Coal fillers
and leaders of SCWU Union held discussions with Mine authorities on the issue of raising the height of the panel
No.42. It is also to submit that the Presenting Officer in his reply during cross examination by charge sheeted
employee stated he came to know about the alleged problem only on 23.09.2000 and advised them to come along with
him to the work spot to identify the problem, if any, and take corrective steps, but the Coal fillers did not head to his
advice and left the mine premises in II shift on 23.09.2000. Further, on 25.09.2000 when the Overman informed of the
corrective steps taken on 24.09.2000 and advised them to go for work, then also they refused to go down and on the
contrary forced the management to inflict the provisions of Section 24(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by
participating in an illegal strike and lead a procession to GM's Office with effigies of Officers. If there was really
any problem, that could have been resolved through negotiations in proper way, but they cannot resort to an illegal
strike. The Respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner union has been projecting the charge sheeted employee
as a disciplined personality and that also holding the post of Organizing Secretary of S. C. Workers Union (AITUC)
and that he was representing number of problems with respondent/management officials from time to time and
brought amicable solutions by fairly discussing with officials, this does not mean that the charge sheeted employee
can participate and organize an illegal strike for 3 shifts and cause loss of wages to other employees and by way of
production loss to the Company. If workman was interested to find out the solution amicably, he could have headed
to the advice of Presenting Officer when it was advised to come with him to the working place to find out the problem
and to take corrective steps and he could have advised other Coal fillers to go down the Mine in I shift on 25.09.2000.
But despite the fact when the Overman had informed of the activity undertaken on 24.09.2000 instead he participated
in an illegal strike, organized a procession with effigies of Officers to General Manager's office. The Petitioner Union
have forgotten conveniently the provisions of Sec. 24(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also the adamant
attitude of the Coal fillers in not going down the Mine and not attending to the works in I shift of 25.09.2000 at panel
No.42. The charge sheeted employee and his witnesses had admitted during the enquiry that they resumed work and
worked at the same place when General Manager of the Area visited the place and passed required instructions, but
they did not pay any attention to the similar assurances by the Mine authorities. It is also submitted that the workman
could have attended the duties normally and could have brought the same to the notice of Area General Manager
instead of participating in an illegal strike. It is also submitted that no lay off was declared but lockout to other
categories of employees was declared since a section of work persons struck work illegally invoking the provisions of
Sec. 24 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner witnesses had admitted the fact of illegal strike of that day
and not attending the duties. It is also submitted that workers and other Coal fillers in I shift on 25.09.2010 they
came to the Mine but did not attend works because of strike and procession and workman admitted that it was not
correct to go in procession to GM office with effigies raising slogans against officers. The charge sheeted employee
himself admitted that the strike held on 25.9.2000 was illegal strike in the first shift and requested to pardon him for
that incident and also requested to give a chance not to repeat it in future. He also expressed his sorry for what
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3257
happened in first shift on 23.9.2000. thus, Petitioner workman has admitted the factum of illegal strike on that day.
Further it is submitted by Respondent’s counsel that a fire accident has taken place at KK-5 Pit office reducing the
records to ashes. Because of this the Presenting Officer could not produce the relevant records.
11.
In view of the submissions made by the Petitioner union of workman as well as the Respondent, and on
perusal of record of enquiry proceeding, following facts are said to be admitted by the workman:-
i)
That workman was on duty as a coal filler on 23.9.2000 as well as on 25.9.2000.
ii)
That the work at Panel 42, KK-5 incline was paralysed and stopped on 23.9.2000 and 25.9.2000 due to
refusal by the coal fillers to go down in the mine for work.
iii)
That the workman made demand to raise the height of panel 42, KK-5 incline, the work place as they were
facing difficulty for filling the tub due to less height at the work place.
iv) It is also admitted that the Petitioner along with workman was deployed in the shift on 23.9.2000 as well as
25.9.2000 and he proceeded to discuss the matter with the Respondent Management at their office.
v)
That on 25.9.2000 the workman and other co-workers refused to go down in the mine for work.
vi)
That the overman informed the workman on 25.9.2000 about corrective steps taken by the Management at
Panel 42, KK-5 incline in pursuance of their demand of raising height. But the workman with other co-workers
proceeded in procession towards G.M.’s office and they were also carrying the effigies of the officers of
Management shouting slogan against Management despite the assurance made by Management. The record of
enquiry proceeding further goes to reveal that Respondent Management in order to prove the charges against the
workman, has examined witnesses MW1, MW2 and MW3 who have witnessed, the incident of strike by workman on
that day and these Management witnesses have categorically stated that the workman Sri A. Sailu, who was in
representative capacity of the office bearer union of the workmen lead the procession with effigies of officials to the
office of the GM’s office. The Respondent Management witnesses were cross examined by Petitioner’s counsel, but
nothing has been elicited in their cross examination to discredit their testimony regarding the incident of illegal strike
on 25th September, 2000 by the workman in the Respondent Management company. After conclusion of the enquiry,
the workman Petitioner Sri A. Sailu has been held guilty of contravention of the Standing Orders No.25.11 and 25.16.
Standing Orders No.2511 & 25.16 are as below:-
“25.11: Going on illegal strike either singly or with other workmen without giving 14 days previous
notice.
25.16: Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or any other Act or any Rule or Regulations or Bylaws there
under.”
Sec.2(q) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines the strike as below:-
(q)
"strike" means a cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in
combination or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of
persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment;
Merely going on strike by the workman does not mean that there is contravention of any Standing Orders, unless it is
proved to be illegal strike.
Sec.24 of I.D. Act, 1947 defines illegal strike:-
(1)
A strike or a lock-out shall be illegal if--
(i)
it is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23; or
(ii)
it is continued in contravention of an order made under sub-section (3) of section 10 1[or sub-
section (4A) of section 10A].
(2)
Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already commenced and is in
existence at the time of the reference of the dispute to a Board, 1[an arbitrator, a] 2[Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal], the continuance of such strike or lock-out shall not be deemed to be
illegal, provided that such strike or lock-out was not at its commencement in contravention of the
provisions of this Act or the continuance thereof was not prohibited under sub-section (3) of section
10 1[or sub-section (4A) of section 10A].
(3)
A lock-out declared in consequence of an illegal strike or a strike declared in consequence of an illegal
lock-out shall not be deemed to be illegal.
Sec.22 of I.D. Act, 1947 provides Prohibition of strikes and lock- outs.-
(1)
No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract:--
3258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(a)
without giving to the employer notice of strike, as herein- after provided, within six weeks before
striking; or
(b)
within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c)
before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or
(d) during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days
after the conclusion of such proceedings.
12.
In view of the above provision of I.D. Act, 1947 we have to examine whether workman was guilty of illegal
strike in the present matter. Admittedly, the Respondent company is public utility service company and the provision
Sec.22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies to it. There is prohibition of strike without giving notice to the
employer, and after notice of strike to the employer within six weeks before the strike. There is no plea or evidence
produced by the Petitioner union that they have given any notice of strike under Sec.22 of I.D. Act, 1947 to the
Respondent Management before proceeding on strike on 25.9.2000. Workman has admitted in his statement before
Enquiry that they did not work on 25.9.2000 in Mine, as their demand of raising of height of 42 Panel was not
considered by the Management. Therefore, the conduct of the workmen being absent from the duties on 23.9.2000
and 25.9.2000, and refused to work on duty, amounts to illegal strike u/s 22 of I.D. Act, 1947. In addition to absence
from duty they also take out the procession with effigies of officials of Management shouting slogans, also amounts
to misconduct in contravention of the company’s Standing Orders. During the enquiry Management witness has
proved conduct of the workman on 25.9.2000 and on the basis of admission of workman in statement, Enquiry
Officer found him guilty of the contravention of the Standing Orders No.25.11 and 25.16 of the company. Thus, it is
proved that workman was involved in the illegal strike on 25.9.2000. Now, let us examine whether there was
justification for workman for being absent from duty.
13.
In this context, I would like to give reference of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Syndicate Bank Vs. K. Umesh Nair 1995 AIR 319, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“The question whether a strike or lockout is legal or illegal does not present much difficulty for resolution since all
that is required to be examined to answer the question is whether there has been a breach of the relevant provisions.
However, whether the action is justified or unjustified has to be examined by taking into consideration various factors
some of which are indicated earlier. In almost all such cases, the prominent question that arises is whether the
dispute was of such a nature that its solution could not brook delay and await resolution by the mechanism provided
under the law or the contract or the service rules. The strike or lockout is not to be resorted to because the party
concerned has a superior bargaining power or the requisite economic muscle to compel the other party to accept its
demand. Such indiscriminate use of power is nothing but assertion of the rule of "might is right". Its consequences
are lawlessness, anarchy and chaos in the economic activities which are most vital and fundamental to the survival of
the society. Such action, when the legal machinery is available to resolve the dispute, may be hard to justify. This will
be particularly so when it is resorted to by the section of the society which can well await the resolution of the dispute
by the machinery provided for the same. The strike or lockout as weapon has to be used sparingly for redressal of
urgent and pressing grievances when no means are available or when available means have failed, to resolve it. It has
to be resorted to, compel the other party to the dispute to see the justness of the demand. It is not to be utilised to work
hardship to the society at large so as to strengthen the bargaining power. It is for this reason that industrial
legislation such as the Act places additional restrictions on strikes and lockouts in public utility services.”
In view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Now, we have to examine that whether there was
justification for an illegal strike on 25.9.2000 by the workman. Whether action of strike by the workman was justified
in the present matter. It has been proved by the Management evidence that on 25.9.2000 the workman were absent
from duty and they refused to join duty. This fact is admitted by workman too.
14.
Now, we have to see whether the conduct of the workman in participating in the illegal strike on 25.9.2000
was just or unjustified. The workman has submitted that there was less height of 42 panel where the workman along
with other coal fillers was posted on 23.9.2000 and 25.9.2000. Number of representations have been made earlier by
the union as well as workman stating difficulties faced by them in discharging duties in mine due to less height of 42
panel. But, Respondent Management did not consider their problems. Therefore on 23.9.2000 and 25.9.2000 they did
not go into the mine for work and proceeded to the office of Respondent Management, to discuss the problems of the
workers. In this context during the enquiry, the delinquent workman has examined himself as WW1 and what he
stated in his cross examination, is being reproduced verbatim as below:
Q:
Do you agree that all coal fillers struck work in first shift on 25.9.2000 and you have participated in the
same?
A:
Yes. I have participated in the strike in I shift since I alone can’t go for work when all other coal fillers go
on strike in I shift on 25.9.2000. Further, I wish to add that the incident in I shift on 25.9.2000 was a
spontaneous reaction against the Management over unexpressed long pending problems faced by most of the
workers of different categories which has resulted in a procession with effigies of Manager and Safety
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3259
Officer to represent the difficulties in general to the General Manager. I say that the strike in I shift on
25.9.2000 was exactly not due to the problem of coal fillers alone. It was the opportunity availed by all other
workmen and by other unions also.
Q:
Do you feel it correct to go in procession with effigies of Manager and Safety Officer uttering slogans against
the Manager and S.O.,?
A:
No, I do not feel it correct to go in procession with effigies etc.. But it was the spontaneous reaction of all
workers in general. I feel personally sorry for what has happened that day beyond mine premises.
Q:
Do you feel guilty in participating in the procession to GM’s office or not?
A:
Yes, I feel guilty in participating in the procession to GM’s office. But it was the spontaneous reaction of
almost all unions and all workmen of KK-3A section. I am not alone responsible for the happenings.
Q:
How many days did strike continued?
A:
The strike continued for 3 shifts on 25.9.2000 because, in general the strike shall be called of in the same
shift till in which it commenced.
Q:
I say that due to strike around 1100 man shifts were lost by the workmen and about 1000 tons production
was lost by the company. Do you agree or not?
A:
I agree. Because of the strike workers lost their wages and company lost production.
Q:
Do you know that strikes are prohibited in S.C. Co. Ltd., and your participation in strike in I shift on
25.9.2000 amounts to violation of Standing Orders or not?
A:
Yes. I know. But I could not control the total workmen of KK 3A section to change their decision to go on
strike.
Q:
Have you gone for distribution afterwards?
A:
No, we could not go for distribution. Since the problem was discussed with Manager by our union
delegates of MM branch. But unfortunately since lockout notice was displayed, we could not go for
distribution.
Q:
Have you worked in I shift as 25.9.00 or not?
A:
As usual I have booked my IN muster in I shift and was prepared to go for work. But I along with other
workmen went to enquire manager about the rectification of roof height work done on 24.9.00. But
meanwhile when our union delegates were discussing the matter with manager, Lock-out notice was
displayed on the Notice Board. So, all the workmen reacted spontaneously and went away without working
resulting in strike. I too followed the other workmen.
Thus, from the perusal of the above statement of the workman, recorded during the enquiry in cross examination, the
workman clearly admits that he participated in the illegal strike on 25.9.2000 and also lead the procession with
effigies of the officials of the Management to the office of the General Manager. Admittedly, workman refused to
work on that day while he was on duty. This fact, that the workman along with other workmen on 23rd and 25th
September, 2000, refused to work in the mine has also been proved by the Management witness.
15.
The Management witness categorically stated that on 24.9.2000 after considering the problems of the
workmen in the less height at 42 panel, the rectification work was done at the work place. But when on the next day
i.e., 25.9.2000, workman turned up on duty and he was informed about the rectification work by the Overman but, the
workman refused to go down in the mine and he did not verify the rectification work done by manager in the mine
on 24.9.2000 instead he instigated other workmen to refuse to duty and initiated the illegal strike. They proceeded
to GM’s office in the procession of workers. They were also carrying the effigies of the management officials and
shouting slogans against the Respondent management. Thus, the above conduct of the workman Sri A. Sailu could
not be termed as a justified action. Since he was told about rectification of problem by the Overman on 25.9.2000
then he was not justified to proceed on illegal strike. Moreover, the problem of less height at work place in the mine
was not so imminent that it can not brook delay and await the solution by the mechanism provided under the law or
contract or service Rule. They could have waited for solution to the problem by adopted mechanism provided under
law and Rules.
16.
The workman admitted that due to the strike of the workman on 25.9.2000 there was 1000 tons of loss of
production in the company and also the 1100 musters were lost by the workmen. Therefore, in these circumstances,
illegal strike organized by the workman Sri A. Sailu along with other workmen in any circumstances, can not be said
to be justified. Therefore, the workman Sri A. Sailu was rightly held guilty of charges for committing illegal strike in
contravention of the Company’s Standing Orders No.25.11 and 25.16, which was not justified.
Thus, Points No.II & III are answered accordingly.
3260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
Point No. IV: Since the workman has committed misconduct in contravention of the Company’s Standing
Orders No.25.11 and 25.16, as he was found guilty of committing illegal strike without any justification, the
Respondent management has imposed punishment of reversion to lower stage by two SPRAs on the workman for his
misconduct. Since due to the misconduct of the workman, the company suffered the production of 1000 tons of the
material as well as there was loss of 1100 musters due to illegal strike, the Respondent Management taking lenient
view has imposed the punishment of reverting him to two lower SPRAs with cumulative effect.
In the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.1841 decided on 20.9.2010 Hon’ble
Apex Court have held:-
“once it is held that domestic inquiry is legal and proper the next question which arises for consideration is as to
whether the punishment imposed on petitioner is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.”
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil Appeal 5762-
5763 of 2009 decided on 24.08.2009 have held:-
“One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable
employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take
into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude
irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”
Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the workman can not be termed as disproportionate or not commensurate to
the misconduct committed by the workman.
18.
It is also argued on behalf of the workman that the workman as representative of the union and office bearer
of the workman union has moved the representation earlier for appraising the problem of the workman at the work
place and he was victimized by Management. But workman failed to prove that earlier any representation regarding
problem was moved to Management. Therefore, the contention of the workman is not acceptable.
19.
The perusal of impugned order goes to reveal that the Respondent management by taking lenient view has
imposed punishment of reversion to lower stage by two SPRAs with cumulative effect to the workman since, the said
misconduct of illegal strike ensuing the major loss of production as well as workman musters was of major category.
Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the workman can not be termed as disproportionate or not commensurate to
the misconduct committed by the workman.
Thus, Point No.IV is answered accordingly.
20.
Point No.V:
In view of the fore gone discussion and findings given in Points No.I, II, III and IV, it is
held that the workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Thus, Point No.V is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result the reference is answered as under:
The action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in reverting to lower stage by two SPRAs
(Special Piece Rate Allowance) in respect of Sri Ankathi Sailoo is legal and justified. As such, the workman is not
entitled to any relief. Petition stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 9th
day of June, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3261
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ᳲसंगरेनी कोिलयरी कंपनी िलिमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] हैदराबाद ds iapkV
(
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/70/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 240/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Singareni Collieryes Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2023.
[No. L-22012/70/2014 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Sri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of July, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.240/2014
Between :
The President (Bandari Satyanarayana),
Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCMS)
Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,
Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial -504 208.
Adilabad Dist..
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur-504 303.
Adilabad Dist.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Sangars Bhagawanth Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy , Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/70/2014-IR(CM-II)
dated 25.11.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman.
The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area,
Sreerampur, Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Are Shankaraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, SRP-1,
Sreerampur Area with effect from 19.3.1998 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled
for?”
3262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.240/2014 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2.
The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed an employee on 11.11.1988, and he become permanent employee
during the course of service in the Company. The Service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by various
standing orders of Company. That the Petitioner could not attend to his duties during the year 1996 due to his ill-
health and the Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.3.1997 and the Petitioner submitted reply on
19.8.1997 and which could not be considered by the Respondent Company and dismissal from Service through
proceedings No. SRP(P)/P (IR)/35.A/98/520, dated 19.3.1998. It is further submitted that the Petitioner preferred an
appeal to the Higher authorities which was went in vein, and Respondent authority mechanically upheld the orders of
Chief General Manager, Srirampur Division. Further, the Petitioner was put in 3 years of service without any red
remark and the Petitioner has got still 20 years of service for superannuation. The removal from service of the
Petitioner, who rendered more than 2 years of qualified service is arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of
natural justice and also against to the Provisions of the Standing Order of the Company. It is submitted that the
Petitioner was given employment for the post as a Ex-Coal Filler. So giving employment to the Petitioner is subject
to availability of vacancy of work. Whenever Petitioner used to request for job therein no work but there appears to
be contributory negligence. The respondent company one way gave employment and other way dismissed the
Petitioner from service. The intention of the company is crystal clear, only to remove the masses i.e excessive labour.
The company adopted unfair labour practice and victimization. The Petitioner could not opt Rs. 3,00,000/- as
compensation in lieu of employment, but opted employment.Now the Petitioner has got re-option to claim
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of dependent employment through Settlements dated 20.11.2009 if the
employment is not provided. The action of the Respondent amount to "Hire and Fire" which has no force in the
Industrial Jurisprudence. That the “Awards and Settlements" both are decrees in terms of Industrial disputes Act.
There was settlement from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2010 before the Regional Labour Commissioner at Hyderabad, those
who were removed from 1.1.2000 to 30.12.2010, cases can be considered by the Management as per the Circular
P.40/5911/IR/33, dated 10.3.2000, the Petitioner was called for interview, so the case of the petitioner is not
considered for Re-employment as per the settlement. If the petitioner was given employment he would have been put
in more than additional 20 years of service. Therefore the non- consideration of settlement by the company is very
bad and against the law. That the Respondent did not conduct enquiry properly and no Documents were given to the
Petitioner and no subsisting allowance is paid to him. The Respondent obtained thumb impressions on enquiry report
and conducted enquiry and Petitioner do not know the English language and enquiry conducted by the Respondent
without mentioning contents therein is arbitrary, illegal and against to the Principles of natural Justice. That the
Petitioner prays the Hon'ble Court to decide the validity of Domestic enquiry. Since date of removal Petitioner and
his children were on roads with untold sufferings. Therefore, prayed for reinstatement into service with continuity of
service and other attendant benefits along with full back wages by setting aside dismissal order dated 19.3.1998.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:
It is submitted that the RCMS Union who raised the dispute before the conciliation officer, has not filed any Claim
Statement before this Hon'ble Tribunal and as such Sri Arey Shankaraiah who filed the Claim Statement is not
maintainable and considering that the petitioner-union has no case to represent before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is
submitted that the present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner Sri Arey Shankaraiah (Are Shankaraiah), to direct
the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity and other attendant benefits and with full back
wages, by setting aside the dismissal order bearing No.SRP/P(IR)/35.A/98/620, Dated 19.3.1998. It is submitted that
in accordance with Sec. 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010 (with effect from. 15.09.2010),
limitation is prescribed and the said provision is extracted below.
"(i) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual
workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such
discharges, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that
no other workmen nor any union of workmen is a party to dispute.
(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make
an application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the
expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation officer of the appropriate
Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have
powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate
Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to
such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.
(iii) The application referred to in Sub-Section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of
three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in
sub-section (1)."
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3263
It is submitted that the Petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Respondent Company on proved charge of
absenteeism vide Letter No. SRP(P)/P(R)/35.A/98/620, Dated 19.03.1998 with immediate effect i.e. from 19.03.1998.
It is apparently clear that there is an abnormal delay of about 18 years in raising the dispute by the Petitioner and
therefore the Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is prayed that this Hon'ble
Tribunal may be pleased to decide the delay in raising the dispute as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that the
delinquent workman was dismissed on proved charge after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the
principles of natural justice. It is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to decide the validity of domestic enquiry
as a preliminary issue. In this regard, it is submitted that this Court may be pleased to permit the Respondent to
produce the evidence in case it is held that the domestic enquiry is not valid. It is submitted that the Petitioner Sri Are
Shankariah, Employee Code No.2838645, Ex-Coal Filler, Srirampur No.1 Incline (not Ravindra Khani No.5 Incline
as stated in the Petition), Srirampur Area of the Respondent Company, was initially appointed on 09.01.1989 and
worked as a Coal Filler at Srirampur No.1 Incline of Srirampur Area. While he was working in Srirampur No.1
Incline of Srirampur Area, he had put in less than 100 musters during the calendar year 1996 and remained absent to
duties unauthorisedly on all other days in the year, which constituted misconduct under Company's Standing Orders
No.25.25 for the misconduct committed by him which reads as follows:
"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause".
The Charge Sheet No.SRP.1/4/09/97/679, dated 13.03.1997 was sent to the home address of the Petitioner as the
Petitioner was not attending, and the Charge Sheet was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. In order to
give a fair opportunity, the Charge Sheet-cum-Enquiry Notice was published in the "Andhra Jyothi" Telugu
Newspaper dated 9.11.1997, advising the Petitioner to submit his explanation and to attend the Enquiry on 18.11.1997
along with witnesses and documentary evidence, if any, to defend his case. The Petitioner neither submitted any
explanation nor attended the Enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte into the charge levelled
against the Petitioner. The Management witnesses produced the relevant documentary evidence in support of the
charge, and the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence adduced in the enquiry and after appreciating all the recorded
evidence, submitted his report in which the Petitioner was held to be guilty of the charge levelled against him under
Company's Standing Order No.25.25. It is submitted that a copy of the Enquiry Report and Proceedings were sent
vide letter No.SRP.1/4/9/98/116, dated 9.1.1998 to the Petitioner to his home address through Registered Post, giving
him an opportunity to make representation within 7 days of receipt of the letter. The said Registered Cover returned
undelivered by the Postal authorities. Therefore, a paper publication was given in "Andhra Jyothi" dated 19.02.1998
stating that the copy of the Enquiry Report is made available at the Office of the General Manager, Srirampur (P)
Area, and he may receive the same in person within one week from the date of publication, to submit his
representation, if any. But the Petitioner did not turn up to take the copy of the Enquiry Report, nor submitted any
representation. As the charge proved against the Petitioner and is of grave and serious in nature, the Petitioner was
dismissed from the service vide Letter No.SRP(P)/P(IR)/ 35.A/98/620, dated 19.3.1998. It is further submitted that
the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire Enquiry Proceedings, and after evaluating all the evidence on
record, concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Since the charge levelled and proved in the enquiry was
of grave and serious in nature warranting punishment of dismissal, and after finding that there was no improvement in
his attendance, and as there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, the Petitioner was dismissed
from the Company's services with effect from6.1.2005 vide Letter No. SRP(P)/P(IR)/35.A/98/620, dated 19.3.1998.
It is further submitted that the Petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190
attendances as expected from an underground workman. Further, he remained absent from duty without sanctioned
leave, sick or sufficient cause and did not bother to communicate to the unit authorities about his inability to attend to
duties. The Petitioner did not at least inform or communicate the reasons of his absence to the mine authorities at any
point of time, which clearly establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. If the Petitioner, as stated in his
Petition, was suffering from ill health, he could have admitted in any one of the Respondent Company's Hospitals.
The Respondent Company has been operating Dispensaries, Area Hospitals and Main Hospital to extend medical
facilities to its employees, their dependant family members. The Petitioner, if really was suffering from health
problems for himself, as alleged in the Petition, he ought to have reported sick in Colliery hospital; he ought to have
requested for sanction of leave to his credit or for sanction of loss of pay leave, but without availing these channels, he
chose to remain absent from duties unauthorisedly. Therefore, the management was compelled to dismiss the
Petitioner, from the service of the Company with effect from 19.03.1998 on the proved charge. It is submitted that the
Petitioner was initially appointed in the Company on 09.01.1989 and worked as Coal Filler at Srirampur No. 1 Incline,
Srirampur Area. The Petitioner, being a permanent employee while in service, was governed by the Company's
Standing Orders as were applicable to other permanent employees in the Respondent Company. It is submitted that
the Petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190 attendances, as expected from an
underground workman during the year 1996 and he had just put in less than 100 musters. Instead of improving
attendance and performance the Petitioner preferred to remain absent from duty unauthorisedly. The averment of the
Petitioner that he submitted reply on 19.08.1997 but the same was not considered by the Respondent Company and he
was dismissed from services through Letter No.SRP(P)/P(IR)/35.A/98/620, dated 19.03.1998, is not correct. It is
submitted that the Petitioner was dismissed from the Company's services with effect from 19.03.1998, on proved
misconduct under Company's Standing Order No.25.25. The Petitioner claimed that he did not attend his duty due to
3264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ill health is not correct, even if it is assumed for a moment without conceding that the Petitioner did not attend his
duties due to his ill health, he could have informed the mine authorities by any nature of communication for sanction
of leave and assistance, or taken treatment in any of the Company Dispensaries or Hospital having specialized medical
facilities and professionals, but neither of the course was taken by the Petitioner. This clearly established the fact that
it is only an afterthought to make out a defence in his favour. It is to submit that citing some or other reason for
absenteeism is not sufficient but such a cause/reason should be substantiated by the Petitioner with documentary
evidence. The Petitioner neither received the Charge Sheet, nor attended the Enquiry. The Petitioner had not even
submitted his representation to the Enquiry Notice which was sent to him by Register Post and returned undelivered.
Later on the same was published in "Andhra Jyothi" news paper. It is to submit that the Petitioner was a chronic
absentee and had never been regular to duties. He was an underground employee and was expected to put in 190
actual musters per calendar year out of possible 300 working days in a calendar year. The Petitioner had put in less
than 100 musters during the year 1996. The further contention of the Petitioner that since he got another 20 years of
service for superannuation, removing the service of the Petitioner with more than 2 years of qualified service is
arbitrary, illegal and against Principles of Natural Justice and also against the provisions of Standing Orders of the
Company, is totally incorrect. If he had left over service of 20 years, the Petitioner had to be very careful and
discharge his responsibilities and duties with commitment. Length of service already rendered and the period of
service left over are not the criteria for initiating disciplinary action and imposing penalty. Depending upon the
seriousness of the misconduct committed and the gravity of the misconduct established, penalty will be imposed. The
Petitioner committed the misconduct of remaining absent to duties unauthorisedly and failed to correct himself in spite
of giving sufficient opportunity; his attendance before and after issuance of Charge Sheet was found to be very poor;
not complied the laid down procedure of reporting sick in Colliery Hospital; communicating inability to attend duties
to the Head of the Mine and even not requested for sanction of loss of pay leave and not submitted documentary
evidence in support of alleged ill health and also failed in putting in 190 musters at least. This is a clear cut indication
of indifferent attitude of the Petitioner towards his employment. The action of Respondent in dismissing the Petitioner
is neither arbitrary, illegal nor against the Principles of Natural Justice and also not against the provisions of Standing
Orders as claimed by the Petitioner. It is to submit that the Petitioner was never regular to duties and as such the
question of returning him after coming for duty does not arise. It is to submit that in the Respondent Company in a
Mine in each shift 400 to 500 employees will work. Naturally among such quantum of employees, few will surely go
on authorised leave or report sick and in their places management provides employment to Badlies and never the
management returns an employee after booking his IN muster at the Mine but provides him job and more so the
Petitioner was being a permanent employee, the question of not providing work to him does not arise at all. Now the
Petitioner makes false allegations that he was not shown work and was returned whenever he went to mine for job.
The Respondent Company will never have a predetermined notion against any of its employees and if at all excess
manpower is found it has other legal measures to overcome such crisis. It has already introduced Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake); Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme; Voluntary Retirement
Scheme (Low Productive Employees) but never used the disciplinary action of dismissal to eliminate surplus
manpower. The Respondent Company never indulged in unfair labour practice and victimization as alleged by the
Petitioner. In order to cover up his mistake the Petitioner is trying to launch against the Respondent Company
terming the action of Respondent as "Hire and Fire" and the same is denied strongly. It is further submitted that the
allegation of the Petitioner that he could not opt Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of employment and re-option to
claim compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of dependant employment through Settlement dated 20.11.2009 is denied.
It is submitted that through various agreements entered into with the recognized Unions on payment of Lump sum
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- or Rs.5,00,000/ are intended for Death and Medical Unfit cases and not meant for dismissal
cases. It is to submit that the Respondent Company had entered into Memorandum of Settlement to provide an
opportunity to the employees dismissed on the ground of absenteeism for appointment as Badli Fillers afresh. In the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2011 arrived at with the then Recognized Union SCWU- AITUC it was
agreed to review the cases of employees dismissed on account of absenteeism during the period from 01.01.2000 to
31.12.2010 and the conditions are that (1) the dismissed employee should be below 55 years as on the date of
Memorandum of Settlement i.e. as on 09.08.2011; (2) the dismissed employee should have put in 190 musters if an
underground employee and 240 musters if surface employee, in any two calendar years out of the 5 years prior to the
year of dismissal (or) should have put in 150 musters (underground employee), 200 musters (surface employee) every
year in the previous four years of dismissal year and (3) these dismissed employees will be interviewed by High
Power Committee and on the basis of High Power Committee's recommendations subject to medical fitness the
candidate will be given appointment as Badli Filler Underground. In the present case, the Petitioner is not satisfying
the stipulations and hence his case was not considered for appointment afresh as Badli Filler. Without qualifying
himself for reappointment the Petitioner cannot claim that if he is considered for re-employment as per Settlement he
would have put in 20 years of service, is not tenable. It is to submit that the Enquiry Officer had held the enquiry
proceedings duly following the principles of Natural Justice. The Petitioner did not participate in the enquiry and the
enquiry was conducted ex-parte. Without doing so all these years, now after a lapse of 18 years the Petitioner is
claiming that enquiry was not conducted properly which is an after though and hence the same is denied. The Enquiry
Officer did not obtain the thumb impressions of the Petitioner on the Enquiry Proceedings, but the Enquiry Officer
conducted the Enquiry ex-parte as the Petitioner failed to attend the Enquiry. As regards the contention that the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3265
enquiry was conducted by the Respondent without mentioning the contents is denied. In this connection it is to
submit that Enquiry was conducted ex-parte as stated supra and Petitioner was given number of opportunities to
represent his case, but the Petitioner failed to put forth his evidence and the Respondent Company after following fair
and lawful procedure and Principles of Natural Justice dismissed the Petitioner from services with effect from
19.03.1998. It is further submitted that this Court may be pleased to permit the Respondent to produce the evidence
in case it is held that the domestic enquiry is not valid. It is submitted that the concerned workman should have been
more careful and conscious of his responsibilities, towards his family members and towards his job. He failed to
realize his mistake in spite of giving opportunities and paid no heed to the advice of his higher authorities in regard to
be regular to duties. For the fault and mistakes of the Petitioner he cannot hold the Respondent Company
responsible. The allegations of the Petitioner are wholly untenable. Hence, the reference be answered in negative.
4.
Heard arguments of Learned Counsel for Respondent as well as perused written arguments. Petitioner did
not submit arguments.
5.
On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, following issues are to be determined:-
I.
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and valid?
II.
Whether the Petitioner’s claim due to inordinate delay and latches of 16 years has become stale and barred
by time limitation?
III.
Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area,
Sreerampur, Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Are Shankaraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, SRP-1,
Sreerampur Area with effect from 19.3.1998 is justified?
IV.
To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
FINDINGS:
6.
Point No. I: The validity of domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid by this Tribunal vide order dated
17.4.2023.
This Point No. I is answered accordingly.
7.
Point No. II: Respondent counsels contended that Petitioner was dismissed from service of the Respondent
company on the proved charge of absenteeism vide letter No. SRP(P)/P (IR)/35.A/98/520, dated 19.3.1998 with
immediate effect i.e., from 19.3.1998. There is inordinate delay of about 16 years in raising the dispute against
dismissal order by the Petitioner. Therefore, Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is
also prayed that the issue of delay and latches in raising the dispute should be decided as preliminary issue.
8.
In view of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for Respondent, perused the record. Admittedly,
Petitioner was dismissed from service of the Respondent company on proved charge of absenteeism vide order No.
SRP(P)/P (IR)/35.A/98/520, dated 19.3.1998 w.e.f. 19.3.1998. Reference of the dispute has been made on 25.11.2014.
Since more than 16 years lapsed from the date of dismissal of the Petitioner from the service and Petitioner failed to
raise his dispute within reasonable time. Whereas no explanation or reason has been furnished by the Petitioner in his
petition for such inordinate delay of 16 years in raising the industrial dispute. Whereas Sec.2A(2) of the I.D. Act,
1947, Amendment Act, 2010 of September, 2010 prescribed the limitation for raising the industrial dispute i.e.,
before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
service of the workman. Therefore, the Petitioner has raised the industrial dispute in respect of his dismissal order
dated 19.3.1998 after lapse of prescribed time of three years with an inordinate delay of 13 years and no plausible
explanation or reason has been furnished by him in his claim statement for such delay. Therefore, due to Petitioner’s
own delay or latches the claim of the Petitioner has become stale.
In this context, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana Sate Cooperation Land Development Bank Vs.
Neelam reported in2005(5) SCC 91, have held, “that a delay of seven years in approaching the Labour Court to
be relevant factor to refuse relief of reinstatement;”
Further, in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Ravi Kumar reported in 2009 13 SCC 746, Hon’ble
Apex Court have held, “that long delay in seeking reference of the dispute has rendered the reference State and it
should have been rejected by the Labour Court.”
In that case reference was sought with a delay of 15 years. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court Petitioner’s claim against in respect of his dismissal order dated 19.3.1998 has
been raised after an inordinate delay of 16 years and his claim against the dismissal order dated 19.3.1998 has become
stale due to how own delay and latches and same is not maintainable.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
9.
Point No. III: The Petitioner has taken the plea in his petition that Petitioner was appointed as an employee
in the Respondent’s company on 11.11.1988 and he could not attend his duties during the year 1996 due to his ill-
3266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
health. The Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.3.1997 and Petitioner submitted reply on 19.8.1997 but
the Respondent did not consider the reply of the Petitioner and dismissed him from services through proceeding
SRP(P)/P (IR)/35.A/98/520, dated 19.3.1998. It is further pleaded that Respondent did not conduct enquiry properly
and no documents were given to the Petitioner and no subsisting allowance is paid to him. Further, Respondent
obtained thumb impressions on enquiry report and conducted enquiry, Petitioner did not know the English language
and enquiry conducted by the Respondent without mentioning contents therein is arbitrary, illegal and against to the
principles of natural justice.
10.
On the other hand, Respondent in his counter has refuted the allegation made by the Petitioner. Since the
validity of domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 17.4.2023, no pleading is maintainable at
this stage regarding challenge of validity of domestic enquiry. Having perused the enquiry report and order of
Disciplinary Authority, there is no fault of any nature can be noticed in order of Disciplinary Authority. Once the
domestic enquiry is held legal and valid, the next question arises for consideration as to whether the punishment
imposed on the Petitioner is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. The Respondent
counsel contended that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceeding and after
evaluating the evidence on record, concurred by the finding of the Enquiry Officer, since the charge levelled and
proved in the enquiry was grave and serious in nature warranting of punishment of dismissal and after finding that
there was no improvement in his attendance and there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, the
Disciplinary Authority has imposed upon the workman the punishment of dismissal from the company’s service
w.e.f. 19.3.1998.
11.
On the other hand, Petitioner has pleaded that the removing of the service of the Petitioner who rendered
more than 2 years of qualified service, is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also against
the provision of the Standing Orders of the company.
12.
Perused the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It is discern from the order that the Petitioner was
appointed as Coal Filler in the Respondent company and he remained absent unauthorizedly without sufficient cause
during the year 1996 and had put in less than 100 musters. Whereas statutorily he is required to be present for 190
musters on duty. As his said act constituted misconduct under the company’s approved Standing Orders, he was
charge sheeted under the Standing Orders No.25.25. The fore said charge has been proved during the enquiry against
the Petitioner. The record of the enquiry and it’s connected papers and finding of the Enquiry Officer were sent to the
Petitioner but despite the service, through registered post as well as of publication in the daily newspaper i.e., “Andhra
Jyothi”, Petitioner did not appear nor filed any explanation against the enquiry report. Therefore despite the service
of show cause notice he himself did not avail the opportunity to put his defence or explanation against the proposed
punishment of dismissal before Disciplinary Authority. In these circumstances, even after affording opportunity of
hearing against the proposed punishment workman did not file any explanation and did not avail opportunity thus, it
would be deemed that he has admitted his guilt as well as inflictment of punishment of dismissal. Thus, the
Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal upon the Petitioner in terms of violation of
Standing Orders No.25.25 of the company. Moreover, there were no extenuating circumstances before the
Disciplinary Authority to take a lenient view in this regard.
13.
Therefore, charge against the workman of unauthorized absence from duty in contravention of the Standing
Orders No.25.25 being serious in nature and keeping in view the misconduct of the unauthorized absence from the
duty of the Petitioner, the order of dismissal passed against workman cannot be faulted with or it can be said to be
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges/misconduct. In view of the fore gone discussion, I am of the considered
view that action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur,
Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Are Shankaraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, SRP-1, Sreerampur Area with
effect from 19.3.1998 for his proved charge of violiatinof Standing Orders No.25.25 is held legal and justified.
Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.
14.
Point No.IV:
In view of the fore gone discussion and determination under Point No.III, the dismissal
order off the Petitioner is held legal and justified. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Thus, this point is answered accordingly.
Result:
In the result the reference is answered as under:
The action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur, Adilabad
Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Are Shankaraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, SRP-1, Sreerampur Area with effect from
19.3.1998 is held legal and justified and as such, Claim petition of the Petitioner is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictate to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the
21st day of July, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3267
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ᳲसंगरेनी कोिलयरी कंपनी िलिमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] हैदराबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/47/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1471.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Singareni Collieryes Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/08/2023.
[No. L-22012/47/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of June, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 94/2018
Between:
Sri Bandari Satyanarayana,
Telengana Trade Union Congress,
Hamaliwada, Near Ashok Talkies,
Shivaji Band Street,
Mancherial - 504208.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (P.O.)
3268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Adilabad – 504292
… Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
: None
For the Respondent
: M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/47/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 25.10.2018
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area,
Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Mulla Rajireddy, Ex-Coal Filler,
Goleti-I Inc., Bellampalli Area with effect from 20.5.1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the
applicant is entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 94/2018 and notices were issued to the parties and has been
served.
2.
On the date fixed for hearing Petitioner remained absent since first date of hearing. Respondent filed
vakalath.
3.
Petitioner neither appeared for hearing nor filed any claim statement despite sufficient number of
opportunities have been provided to him. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not interested in
pursuing his case and as such a no claim award is given against the workman/petitioner. As such, a ‘No Claim’
award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 23rd
day of June, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] हैदराबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20013/01/2023-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/07/2023.
[No. L-20013/01/2023 – IR (CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3269
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of May, 2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 49/2008
Between:
Sri K. I. Raju.
S/o Arjaiah,
C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,
Advocate,
Flat No.G7, Ground Floor,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Opp: Badruka Jr. College for Girls,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Chairman & Managing Director,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem, Khammam District.
2.
The Director (PA & W).
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem, Khammam Dist.
3.
The Dy.SE(IE),
RG-II, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri K. I. Raju who worked as Clerk (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under
Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 20.1.2003 issued by the 2nd Respondent and consequential order issued by
the 3rd Respondent dated 28.1.2003 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the
Respondents to reinstate the Workman into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of
service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that, while Workman was working as Clerk at GDK 8 Incline, charge sheet dt.24.12.2001 was issued,
alleging that, while he was working as Clerk Grade-II at RG-II Workshop, he has prepared LLTC pay sheet
dt.8.4.1998 without sanction of leave/claim application by the competent authority. It is submitted that, on receipt
of the above charge sheet, Workman has submitted representations dt.7-1-2002 and 7-6-2002, requesting to furnish all
the relevant documents, so as to enable him to submit his reply. However, only some of the documents were permitted
to be verified by the Workman and all the documents have not been furnished. Despite, as there is no other option,
Workman submitted his reply dt.16.6.2002 denying the charge and also explained as to how the charge alleged against
him is incorrect. Unfortunately, without considering any of the submissions made by the Workman, in a
predetermined manner an enquiry was conducted. It is submitted that, the enquiry officer has not explained the
3270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
procedure of enquiry, as the Workman was not aware of the exact procedure of enquiry, he could not participate in the
enquiry effectively. During the course of enquiry, the Presenting Officer examined two witnesses i.e., One Mr. Odelu
and Chandraiah. However, Workman could not examine any witness, as he was not aware of procedure of enquiry.
In fact, the Workman also could not cross examine the management witnesses properly, as the Workman was not
aware of procedure of enquiry. Had the procedure of enquiry was explained, perhaps, the Workman could have
properly examined the management witnesses and also ought to have examined witnesses on his behalf. It is
submitted that, without considering any of the submissions made by the Workman the 2nd respondent issued the
impugned office order dated 20.1.2003 dismissing the Workman from service. It is submitted that, during the course
of enquiry, the enquiry officer wholly relied upon the alleged opinion of Finger print experts, which was obtained
behind the back of the Workman. Therefore, basing on such opinion the charge alleged against the Workman cannot
be held proved. It is submitted that, whenever Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer are relying upon a particular
document, the witnesses connected with such document, should be examined during the course of enquiry. In fact, any
such document can be marked only through relevant witness, but not through stranger. However, in the instant case,
the Finger Print Expert, who has given opinion, was not examined, so as to enable the Workman to cross examine
such witness. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer relying upon the opinion of Finger Print Experts and the
consequential impugned order of dismissal are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, evidence
on record clinchingly establish that, only with a view to hold the Workman as guilty of charges, the specimen
signatures were obtained wrongly from the workmen. Further, it is also not sure whether the alleged specimen
signatures belongs to the concerned workmen or not. Therefore, simply basing on the alleged opinion expressed by
the Finger Print Experts, Workman cannot be held guilty of charges. It is submitted that, the charges alleged against
the Workman vide charge sheet dt.24.12.2001 pertains to the 4 workmen i.e., S/Sri B.Mallesham, D.Chandraiah.
T.Posham and E.Odelu and their refusal of receipt of LLTC amounts. During the course of enquiry only
S/Sri D.Chandraiah and Odelu were examined and basing on their evidence, enquiry officer concluded that the
charges alleged in respect of P.Posham and Mallesham were also held proved. Therefore, finding of the enquiry
officer in this regard is liable to be treated as perverse and the ultimate finding arrived at by the enquiry officer, which
was ultimately followed by the Disciplinary Authority, resulting in issuance of order of dismissal, are liable to be set
aside. It is submitted that, there is no charge of misappropriation against the Workman. The management witnesses
also did not allege that, the Workman misappropriated LLTC amounts. However, surprisingly the enquiry officer
came to a conclusion that the Workman has committed misappropriation. It is submitted that, it is not for the enquiry
officer, to go beyond the scope of the charge sheet. However, in the instant case, as the enquiry officer was
predetermined, he held that action of the Workman is detrimental to the interests of the company. It is submitted that
the LLTC would be paid to the workmen of the respondent company once in four years. For this purpose, the
workmen who claim LLTC have to apply leave for 7 days. Only on such application, leave would be granted and
amount of LLTC would be paid to the concerned workman. No employee, who could not avail leave would be
granted LLTC amounts. In the instant case, all the concerned workmen have not only applied for LLTC but also
applied for leave. The documents on record clearly shows that, all the workmen have availed leave for the purpose of
LLTC and they have not disputed the said factum. If really the workmen have not applied for LLTC, the question of
applying leave does not arise. Every workman would get eligibility of leave with pay, basing on their actual working
days of the previous year. The leave record would be maintained by the office. As and when the workmen avail leave,
the same would be deducted from their balance of leaves to his credit. In the instant case, having availed the 7 days
leave towards LLTC during the respective years they have not disputed the factum of availment of leave at any point
of time. Only when the Dy.CE allegedly informed them about the proposed recovery of alleged excess paid LLTC
amount, the concerned workmen came up with a story of not applying or not receiving the amount of LLTC. If really
the workmen have not applied or received the LLTC amount, they could have certainly asked the authorities as to why
7 days of leave was deducted from their balance of leaves. The conduct of the workmen itself shows that, only to
avoid the proposed recovery, allegedly excess paid amounts they have deposed falsely. As a matter of fact, neither
MW-1 nor MW-2 denied the factum of taking of LLTC amount entirely. During the cross examination, what all the
management witnesses said was, they did not take the LLTC amount during April'1998. However, they have not
denied the taking of amount entirely. I n this regard, it is pertinent to mention that, the payments were made to the
concerned workmen during the year 1998, whereas enquiry was conducted during the year 2002. Therefore, there was
a gap of more than 4 years, and the concerned workman either might have forgotten the receipt of amounts or only
with a view to avoid the proposed recovery, as sought to be made by Dy.CE, they might have deposed falsely. It is
submitted that, if really they have not availed LLTC amount during the year 1998 block, they could have complained
about the non-payment of LLTC amount and also ought to have applied for the same on any other subsequent date.
In the instant case, there is no evidence on record to show that the workmen have applied for LLTC during the same
block or availed the same. In the absence of any such evidence, Workman cannot be presumed to have committed
misconduct. Even evidence on record clearly establish that, only on being enquired by Dy.CE, as to why the excess
paid amounts should not be recovered from their salary, they alleged to have stated that they have not applied or
availed LLTC. In this regard, the role of 'Dy.CE becomes important'. In the instant case, either it should be proper
payment or improper payment. The question of excess payment does not arise. However, in the instant case, as can be
seen from the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 the Dy.CE summoned and informed them that they have taken excess
amount of LLTC and deductions would be made from their salary. Upon threatening, the workmen stated that they
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3271
have not taken LLTC amount in April'1998. It is not known how the Dy.CE could call them and inform them about
the excess amount, when there is no such excess amount. Further, it is submitted that, evidence on record would
establish that the Workman was not regular pay sheet clerk, in the absence of regular pay sheet clerk, he prepared the
LLTC pay sheets, as and when required by the authorities. By afflux of time, Workman as well as the witnesses
might have forgotten the incidents occurred more than 4 years ago, that too, payments would be made to the workmen
every month, apart from bonus, LTC, LLTC, Incentive etc. Therefore, what transpired 4 years ago could not have
been properly remembered by the Workman. It is submitted that, as the workmen has not raised any objection to the
findings of the objections with regard to the opinion expressed by the Finger Print Experts, it is to be deemed that, the
workmen accepted the findings opinion of the Finger Print Experts. It is incorrect to contend that, Workman has not
objected to the opinion of the Finger Print Experts. It is for the Presenting Officer to introduce the proper witnesses
and to establish the charge through valid evidence on record. Simply because the workman has not raised any
objection, the invalid evidence would not become a valid evidence. In this regard, precisely for this reason,
explaining the procedure of enquiry to the delinquent employee. As a matter of fact, evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 is
contrary to the charge alleged against the Workman. The MW-1 and MW-2 categorically stated that, they are not
aware of who have taken their LLTC amounts. However, the evidence on record clearly establish that they have
applied for leave to claim LLTC amount. There is no substantive evidence on record to show that, the concerned
workmen have not applied for sanction of leave or claimed LLTC. Simply basing on the oral evidence of MW-1 and
MW-2, that too, after being threatened by Dy.CE of the proposed allegedly excess paid amounts, and avoid such
proposed recovery, the workmen disputed the payments made to them. If that is permitted to happen, every workman
would dispute the payments made to them. It is also not uncommon in the company that, payments would be received
by the workmen on behalf of their colleagues on the request of the concerned workman. In the instant case, any thing
might have been happened. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that, the concerned workmen have not
applied for LLTC. As a matter of fact, after preparation of LLTC pay sheets, the competent authority would verify and
put up his signatures, thereafter the internal audit would verify the payments made to the workmen and certify the
same. Therefore, in the instant case, neither the competent authority nor the internal audit section have find fault with
the payments made to the workmen. Therefore, after more than 4 years, by causing threatening to the concerned
workmen a false case cannot be filed against the Workman and basing on such false case Workman cannot be
dismissed from service. At the cost of reiteration, charges alleged against him are false and fabricated and impugned
order of dismissal is liable to be set-a-side. It is submitted that, whenever an enquiry is conducted and enquiry officer
submitted his report, the Disciplinary Authority is suppose to examine the same and pass a reasoned order. In the
instant case, impugned office order dt.20.1.2003 does not indicate any reasons, much less valid in nature. The
impugned office order was issued in a routine and mechanical manner, as such the same is liable to be set aside. It is
submitted that, an amount of Rs.58,594.90 was recovered from the NCWA VI and VII arrears and RG-II GM
Employees Cooperative Credit Society towards the alleged misappropriation of amounts, with reference to the charge
sheet dt.24.12.2001. Therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service for the same offence amounts to
double jeopardy. Assuming without admitting that, the charges alleged against the Workman are held proved rightly
by the enquiry officer, even then, the circumstances under which the charges were held proved may not justify the
imposition of penalty from dismissal from service, which is capital punishment in service jurisprudence. The
Workman is the lone earning member in his family, consisting of old aged mother, wife and two children. Workman
belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and belongs to socially and economically poor strata. Therefore, in case if
this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are proper, Workman craves
indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to modify the penalty of dismissal to that of any other lesser punishment, so as to
enable Workman and his family members to survive in this world. Workman is not gainfully employed elsewhere
from the date of his dismissal i.e., from 28-1-2003. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to
declare the impugned order No. CRP/PER/IR/92/119 dt.20-1-2003 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential
office order No.Rc2/IED/R/2003/57 dt.28-1-2003 issued by the 3rd respondent are illegal and arbitrary and set aside
the same and consequently direct the respondents to re-instate the Workman into service duly granting all other
consequential benefits, such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in
brief which runs as follows:
The Workman was appointed in the services of the Company on 14-10-1982 as Clerk Grade-II in the Respondent's
Company. On 13-01-1992 the Workman was charged with the offence under Company 's Standing Order No. 25.1
"Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Company's business or property" for manipulating the muster
statements sent from the Office of Area Safety Office, Srirampur to the Office of Controller of Accounts, Srirampur,
during the months of February, March, June, July, October, November and December of 1991 showing that the
Workman had worked 92 days during this period though the Workman remained absent on these days. Further the
Workman has drawn 8 hours over-time allowance during the month of October, 1991 though he had not worked at all.
The Workman has also claimed one paid holiday allowance on 05.11.1991 on which date he did not work. On the
above proved charges, the Workman was dismissed from the services of the Company with effect from 21-07-1993
vide Office Order dated 14-07-1993. In consideration of his mercy petition dated 16.11.1994, the Workman was re-
appointed afresh as Grade-II Clerk, on an initial basic pay of Rs.1158/- per month vide order dated 24.11.1994. It is
3272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitted that the Workman while working as Pay Sheet Clerk Grade-II at Area Workshop at Ramagundam-II, the
duties performed by the pay Sheet Clerk are preparation of pay sheets of workmen of NCWA cadre employees
including preparation of LTC / LLTC, and making payment to them and obtain their acknowledgement on the pay
sheets. It is submitted that while performing the duties, the Workman as Pay Sheet Clerk, he has prepared L.T.C. /
L.L.TC. pay sheets pertaining to the N.C.W.A. employees of Ramagundam Workshop. It is submitted that Workman
included the leave and LL.TC. claims of the following workmen on the date of pay sheets shown against them even
though they have not applied for the same. He has further shown in the pay sheets that he has paid the amounts to
those workmen. Workman has fraudulently made the leave applications, drawn the amount towards L.L.T.C, payable
to them and misappropriated the same by not paying the amounts to those workmen. He has shown in the pay sheets
that the said amounts were paid to them, with forged signatures/L.T.I.
Date of Pay
Sheet
Name of the workman
Amount drawn by the Workman
08-04-1998
21-02-1998
21-04-1998
21-04-1998
Sri D.Mallesham, General Mazdoor
Sri D. Chandriah. General Mazdoor
Sri P. Pos ham, General Mazdeor
Sri E. Odelu, General Mardeor
Rs. 9,824.00
Rs.5,568,00
Rs. 9,824.00
Rs, 9,84.00
If the above workmen really have applied tor L.L.T.C, they would have been paid. The Internal Audit Department
have observed while Auditing the pay sheets that the above workmen have drawn their L.L.T.C, twice, and the
amount once already drawn has to be recovered. The workers were called and informed the same by their Head of the
Department. The above workmen have totally denied their drawing the amounts towards L.L.T.C. in the month of
February / April 1998 and vehemently opposed that the signatures / LTIs appeared in the above pay sheets are of not
theirs. Since they have denied having receipt of the above amounts as per the pay sheets and payments made in
February / April 1998, the said pay sheets along with their specimen signatures / LTIs were sent to the Forensic
Scientific Laboratory / Finger Print Bureau of Andhra Pradesh for their opinion. It was confirmed by them that the
signatures / LTIs. appeared in the paid pay sheets and leave applications are not the signatures of the above workmen.
As these L.L.T.C. pay sheets were prepared and certified that the amounts therein were paid to the workmen by the
Workman, the fraud and misappropriation committed by the Workman has come to surface. As the Workman's act as
stated above amounts to misconduct under Company's Certified Standing Order Nos. 25(1) and 25(23 ) which read as
follows.
"25.1 - Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property.
25.23 -Any willful and deliberate act which is subversive or discipline or which may be detrimental to the interest of
the Company. "
A charge sheet dated 24-12-2001 was issued to the Workman directing him to submit his explanation within four days
of receipt of the charge sheet. It was duly acknowledged on 03-01-2002. But, the Workman has not submitted any
explanation to the above charge sheet. However, a domestic enquiry into the charges leveled against the Workman has
been ordered. A full-length domestic enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against the Workman. Enquiry
was commenced on 12-05-2002 and held on different dates. The Workman has fully participated in the proceedings of
the enquiry. He was cross-examined by the Management Witnesses and deposed himself as witness and stated that he
had no further witnesses to examine. Finally the enquiry was concluded on 23rd June, 2002. The Enquiry Officer has
submitted his findings dated 14-07-2002 stating that the charges were proved and the Workman had fraudulently
prepared the L.L.T.C. pay sheets in respect of the above said four workmen without their applications and the LLTC
amounts were not paid to them. It was also established that the Workman has deliberately misappropriated the
LLTC/LTC amounts of the above said four workmen. He said that the Workman is guilty of misconduct under
Company's Standing Order Nos. 25(1) and 25(23 ) as alleged vide charge sheet dated 24-12-2001. A copy of the
Enquiry Proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer were also served on the Workman vide letter dated 28-08-
2002 advising him to represent against the same if any within seven days. In response to the above, the Workman has
submitted his representation dated 12th November, 2002 stating that, "I have gone through the contents of the Enquiry
Report sent to me and I accept the findings of the management ........ I also assure you that 1 will not commit any such
mistakes hereafter and do my job to the satisfaction of my superiors ....I am also praying your good self to kindly
extenuate my mistake for this time." The charges leveled and proved against the Workman are considered to be grave
and serious and there are no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view to award lesser punishment than that of
dismissal, the Workman was dismissed from the services of the Company with effect from 28-01-2003 vide Order
dated 20-01-2003. There is a provision in the Standing Order No. 29 that the workman on whom any of the penalties
is imposed shall have the right to appeal to the authorities notified in this behalf. The appeal shall be submitted within
45 days of receipt of the Order of the punishment. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within 45 days
of receipt of the same. It is settled law that where departmental appeal is provided under the Rules, it should be
availed before approaching the Labour Court or Tribunal for raising an Industrial Dispute. The Workman, under this
provision has not made any appeal against the Order of punishment. But in the representation dated 12-11-2002 he
admitted that he accept the findings of the Management and assured that he will not commit any such mistakes in
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3273
future. The Workman having voluntarily accepted his guilt vide his representation dated 12-11-2002 preferred to
approach this Hon'ble Tribunal after a lapse of 5 years 4 months only to take a chance. As such, the Workman's
claim is a stale claim. It is a settled law that the claim may become stale even by passage of 3 to 4 years. The
workman cannot be allowed to approach the Labour Court after more than 3 years of termination of his service.
Workman could not be put in on a higher pedestal than the ordinary Government Employee or Employees elsewhere
that is required to challenge his termination before Civil Court within a period of 3 years. The procedural laws like
estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and Doctrine of Acceptance sub silent arc applicable even to the proceedings
under the I.D. Act. With regard to domestic enquiry conducted into the charges leveled against the Workman it is
submitted that the principles of natural justice were complied. The Workman has fully participated in the domestic
enquiry and cross-examined the Management's witnesses. At no stage the Workman pleaded violation of principles of
natural justice. It is submitted that the Workman alleged that the Enquiry Officer has not explained the procedure of
enquiry, as such he could not participate in the Enquiry effectively, examine any of the witnesses and he could not
cross-examine the Management Witnesses properly are false and baseless. The Workman was dismissed from the
services of the Company after careful consideration of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry and findings of the
Enquiry Officer and also looked into his past record and found that there are no extenuating circumstances to award
lesser punishment than that of dismissal from the services of the Company. It is submitted that this Tribunal may
decide as to validity of a domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and in case it is vitiated for any reason, the
Respondent Management may be permitted to prove the charges leveled against the Workman before this Hon'ble
Tribunal. It is submitted that the Workman made a representation dated 07-06-2002 to furnish all the relevant
documents to enable him to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The Workman was permitted by the management to
verify all the relevant documents and the Workman verified the same on 09-06-2002. After verification, the
Workman endorsed as *seen" and put his initials to that effect. Inspite of the above, the Workman has not submitted
his explanation to the charge sheet as has been admitted by him in the preliminary examination held by the Enquiry
Officer. It is submitted that (i) a copy of the report of the finger print experts dated 21-09-2001 with covering letter
of Director, F.P.B. and (ii) report of (Opinion) APFSI of Hyderabad, on thumb impressions at Page-36 was received
by the Workman before commencement of examination of the concerned witnesses. The Workman has not questioned
the validity of these documents nor of their marking as exhibits. The allegations that these documents were obtained
behind the back of the Workman, thus it is no more a res Integra, the connected witness should be examined during
the course of enquiry, they have been marked by a stranger, the enquiry officer relied on them, consequently the
impugned order of dismissal was issued as such it should be set aside, does not withstand to the test of closure
scrutiny. It is submitted that the Workman neither on receipt of these documents has raised any objections over the
same nor questioned the validity of these documents to mark as management's exhibits, during the course of enquiry.
The Workman in his representation dated 22.11.2002 stated that I have gone through the contents of the Enquiry
Report sent to me and accept the findings of the Management." Therefore, these allegations are invented after five
and-half years, for raising an Industrial Dispute before this Tribunal. It is submitted that the Workman cannot find
fault for obtaining the specimen signatures of the concerned workmen. It is not true that the specimen signatures were
obtained with a view to implicate the Workman in a false case and held him guilty of the charges leveled against him.
As the concerned workmen denied as to receipt of the LLTC amounts as mentioned in the pay sheet said to have been
prepared by the Workman, their specimen signatures were obtained and sent to the Finger Prints Expert's Opinion, in
order to verify the facts. The Workman's allegation that the Finger Prints Expert's Opinion can not be taken into
consideration is not tenable under Law. It is submitted that it is the record that the Workman committed fraud and
misappropriated the LLTC amounts pertaining to the above 4 workmen. In the enquiry proceedings the Management's
witnesses deposed their evidence and marked the relevant documents as exhibits. The Workman availed the
opportunity to cross-examine the Management's witnesses. The findings of the enquiry officer are fully corroborated
with the proceedings of the domestic enquiry. It is submitted that the allegations of the Workman that there is no
charge of misappropriation of LLTC amounts against him as such the Enquiry Officer is predetermined the findings
arrived by him are beyond the scope of enquiry and they are perverse are denied. It is submitted that the Workman
through forged leave applications of the above four workmen prepared LLTC pay sheet in their names. He has drawn
the cash payable to them and misappropriated the same without making payment to them. The Workman has shown
that the amounts were paid to the concerned workmen by putting forged signatures / LTIs. Thus, it is evident that the
Workman has committed fraud in the preparation of the pay sheets and misappropriated the amounts by showing that
the said amounts were paid with the forged signatures of the workmen. The willful and deliberate misconduct
committed by the Workman is not only subversive of discipline but also detrimental to the interests of the Company.
The findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer are corroborated with the evidence on record of the enquiry proceedings
and as such the allegations of the Workman are false and baseless. It is true that the workmen avail LLTC by applying
leave for seven days once in a block of four years. The averment of the Workman that the concerned workmen have
applied leave and for payment of LLTC amounts and they have not disputed the fact of availing leave at any point of
time is not true. Having availed the LLTC earlier the workmen are not aware of the fraud played by the Workman
and drawing the LLTC amounts on their name and his misappropriation during the year 1998. It is not the
presumption but it is on record that the Workman committed fraud, misappropriation and forgery in respect of four
persons, with regard to their leave and LLTC amounts in the year 1998. It is true that the question of excess payment
to these four workmen does not arise as the Workman committed fraud without any information to them. It is
3274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
submitted that the Dy.Chief Engineer is the Head of the Department. When it is reported that the said four workmen
have drawn their LLTC amounts two times in the same block period. He called and intimated the same to them. On
this they reacted and informed that they have not drawn any amounts towards LLTC in the year 1998. The Workman
contended that what transpired four years ago could not have been properly remembered by him. It is submitted that it
is not recalling the memory of the Workman but it is on record that the Workman unambiguously committed fraud
and misappropriated the LLTC amounts by drawing the same in the name of four workmen. It is submitted, it is a fact
that M.W I and M.W.2 categorically denied and stated that they are not aware who have taken their L.TC amounts.
They are not aware that the Workman has drawn on their name through fraudulent means and misappropriated. It is
proved that the Workman committed fraud and misappropriation. The assumptions and presumptions made by the
Workman such as that sometimes their colleagues will receive payments on behalf of the workmen is an attempt to
cover up his fraud and misappropriation. It is true that there are checks for passing LLTC payment but the Workman
managed all these checks and committed fraud and misappropriation. Workman’s allegation that the charges leveled
against him are false and fabricated and impugned order of dismissal is liable to be set aside are not tenable. The
allegation of the Workman that the Disciplinary Authority has not gone through the Domestic Enquiry Proceedings
and findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned order dated 20.1.2003, does not indicate any reasons and it was issued
in a routine and mechanical manner are not true. It is submitted that the Workman while accepting the findings of the
Management and assured that he will not commit any such mistakes in future through his letter dated 12.11.2002
requested the Management to allow him to continue his job. It is true that an amount of Rs. 35,040/- fraudulently
drawn by the Workman through LLTC pay sheets in the name of four workmen and another amount of Rs. 23,554/-
towards his due payable to the Co-operative Credit Society against the loan taken by him was recovered. He has not
objected or protected against such recovery. Refund of embezzled amount by the delinquent workman cannot wipe out
the punishment imposed on him and much less it can not be considered to be double jeopardy. That the Order of
dismissal passed by the Respondent Management is liable to be set side is not tenable under law, as it was issued as a
token of punishment on the grade and serious charges leveled and proved against him. Workman is put to strict proof
that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere from the date of his dismissal from the services of the Respondent
Company. It is submitted that the Respondent Management awarded the punishment of dismissal from the services of
the Company on proved charges of fraud and dishonesty. The Workman's contention that he is lone earning member,
having old mother, wife and children, belongs to Scheduled caste community etc., can not be taken as grounds for
seeking lesser punishment for his proved misconduct of fraud and dishonesty. Therefore, it is prayed that the
petition of the Workman be dismissed as devoid of merits.
4.
The perusal of the record reveals that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents in this case is
held as legal and valid vide order dated 21.1.2011.
5.
Heard arguments of le for both the parties. They have also filed their written submissions.
6.
On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge
for determination:-
I.
Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the Workman is legal and valid?
II.
Whether the termination order dated 20.1.2003 passed by 2nd Respondent regarding dismissal of the
Workman from service is illegal and liable to be set aside as alleged by the Workman?
III.
Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 20.1.2003 with
effect from 28.1.2003 is commensurate to the charge proved against the workman or it is disproportionate to
the misconduct?
IV.
To what relief the Workman is entitled?
7.
Point No. I: Point No.I pertains to the question whether departmental enquiry conducted against the
Workman is legal and valid. The validity and legality of departmental enquiry conducted against the Workman has
been decided by the Court vide order dated 21.1.2011 and it has been held legal and valid.
Thus, Point No.I is decided accordingly.
8.
Points No. II: Point No.II pertains to the question whether the dismissal order dated 20.1.2003 passed
by the 2nd Respondent against the Workman terminating the services of the Workman is illegal and arbitrary. On
this point Learned Counsel for the Workman submitted that while Workman was working at RG-II he used to look
after various works such as Manway Clerk duty, preparation of pay sheets, etc., of the NCWA employees. While so,
a charge sheet dt.24-12-2001 was issued alleging that, the Workman prepared LLTC pay sheets of three employees
i.e. D.Chandraiah, P.Posham and E. Odelu and they have denied receipt of LLTC amounts. As such, a presumption
was drawn, as if, the Workman has committed misconduct under the Company's Standing Order Nos.25 (1) & 25
(23). It is also submitted that on receipt of the above charge sheet, the Workman has submitted a representation
dt.07-06-2002 to provide certain documents, which have not been furnished along with the charge sheet and which
were essential for adjudication of the same. Thereafter, vide reply dt. 16.6.2002, the Workman has categorically
pleaded that, all the workmen have applied and availed leave on various dates so as to enable them to claim
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3275
LTC/LLTC amounts. The Workman has also pleaded that, all of them were paid LTC/LLTC amounts on various
dates. The Workman also requested to verify the E-Registers (Leave Registers) and pay sheets so as to arrive at a
proper conclusion. But that was not provided. It is also submitted that Enquiry Officer while arriving at a conclusion
about the Workman ‘s guilt relied upon finger print expert's opinion and report of APSFI, Hyderabad, to hold the
Workman as guilty. However, none of them related to those documents were examined in the enquiry giving the
Workman an opportunity of cross examination. As a result of the above, whole enquiry got vitiated and the order of
dismissal passed by the competent authority basing on the report of the enquiry officer is liable to be set aside. It is
further submitted that during the enquiry, except the Presenting Officer, no other witness deposed that, the Workman
has committed the mistake. It is submitted that, during the relevant time, the Workman was not only performing the
duties of pay sheets but also performing the Manway Clerk duty. Therefore, there is no evidence on record that, while
preparing the LTC/LLTC pay sheets, the Workman has not done any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet.
9.
On the other hand the counsel for Respondent has submitted that the Workman was appointed in the
services of the Company on 14-10-1982 as Clerk Grade-II in the Respondent's Company. On 13-01-1992 the
Workman was charged with the offence under Company's Standing Order No. 25.1, "Theft, fraud or dishonesty in
connection with the Company's business or property" for manipulating the muster statements sent from the Office of
Area Safety Office, Srirampur to the Office of Controller of Accounts, Srirampur, during the months of February,
March, June, July, October, November and December of 1991 showing that the Workman had worked 92 days during
this period though the Workman remained absent on these days.
10.
The Workman while was working as Pay Sheet Clerk Grade-II at Area Workshop at Ramagundam-II the
duties performed by the pay Sheet Clerk are preparation of pay sheets of workmen of NCWA cadre employees
including preparation of L.T.C/ L.L.T.C. and making payment to them and obtain their Acknowledgement on the pay
sheets. It is submitted that while performing the duties, the Workman as Pay Sheet Clerk, he has prepared L.T.C. /
L.L.T.C. pay sheets pertaining to the N.C.W.A. employees of Ramagundam Workshop. The Workman included the
leave and L.L.T.C. claims of the following workmen on the date of pay sheets shows against them even though they
have not applied for the same. He has further shown in the pay sheets that he has paid the amounts to those workmen.
In fact, the Workman has fraudulently made the leave applications, drawn the amount towards L.L.T.C. payable to
them and misappropriated the same by not paying the amounts to those workmen. He has shown in the pay sheets that
the said amounts were paid to these workmen viz.,S/ Sri D.Mallesham, General Mazdoor, D. Chandriah, General
Mazdoor, P. Posham, General Mazdoor, Sri E. Odelu, General Mazdoor. If the above workmen really have applied
for L.L.T.C. they were paid. The Internal Audit Department have observed while Auditing the pay sheets that the
above workmen have drawn their LL.T.C. twice, and the amount once already drawn has to be recovered. The
workers were called and informed the same by their Head of the Department. The above workmen have totally denied
their drawing the amounts towards L. L.T. C. in the month of February / April 1998 and vehemently opposed that the
signatures / LTIS appeared in the above pay sheets are of not theirs. Since they have denied having receipt of the
above amounts as per the pay sheets and payments made in February / April 1998, the said pay sheets along with their
specimen signatures / LTIS were sent to the Forensic Scientific Laboratory/ Finger Print Bureau of Andhra Pradesh
for their opinion. It was confirmed by them that the signatures / LTIS appeared in the paid pay sheets and leave
applications are not the signatures of the above workmen. As these L.L.T.C. pay sheets were prepared and certified
that the amounts therein were paid to the workmen by the Workman, the fraud and misappropriation committed by the
Workman has come to surface.
11.
As the Workman's above stated act amounts to misconduct under Company's Certified Standing Order
Nos. 25(1) and 25(23) which reads as follows.
“25.1:
Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property.
25.23 - Any willful and deliberate act which is subversive or discipline or which may be detrimental to the interest of
the Company."
12.
It is also submitted that a charge sheet dated 24-12-2001 was issued to the Workman, directing him to
submit his explanation within four days of receipt of the charge sheet. He was duly acknowledged the same on 03-01
2002. But the Workman has not submitted any explanation to the above charge sheet. However, a domestic enquiry
into the charges leveled against the Workman has been ordered. Enquiry was commenced on 12-05-2002 and held on
different dates. The Workman has fully participated in the proceedings of the enquiry. He was cross-examined the
Management Witnesses and deposed himself as witness and stated that he had no further witnesses to examine.
Finally the enquiry was concluded on 23rd June, 2002. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings dated
14.7.2002 stating that the charges were proved and the Workman had fraudulently prepared the L.L.T.C. pay sheets in
respect of the above said four workmen without their applications and the LLTC amounts were not paid to them. It
was also established that the Workman has deliberately misappropriated the LLTC/LTC amounts of the above said
four workmen. He said that the Workman is guilty of misconduct under Company's Standing Order Nos. 25(1) and
25(23) as alleged against him vide charge sheet dated 24-12-2001.
3276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.
Further, Respondent counsel submitted that charge levelled against the Workman are considered to be
grave and severe and there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view towards the lesser punishment
than that of dismissal and the Workman was dismissed from the services of the company with effect from
28.1.2003 vide order dated 20.1.2003. It is also submitted that though there is a provision of the appeal against the
order of Disciplinary Authority but the Workman did not avail of it, filing the appeal before approaching the Labour
Court or Tribunal for raising an industrial dispute. Thus, Workman has not raise any appeal against the order of
punishment, but in his representation dated 12.11.2002 he admitted that, he accepts the finding of the Management
and assure that he will not commit any such mistakes hereafter. Thus, the Workman has accepted his guilt
voluntarily, vide his representation dated 12.11.2002, preferred to approach this Tribunal after lapse of 5 years 4
months only to take a chance. As such, the Workman’s claim is a stale claim.
14.
In support of his submission Respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka vs. Shivalinga (2002-LLR-O-327), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld
the findings of the Labour Court which held that the abnormal delay in approaching the Labour Office would be fatal
to the case and on that basis rejected the reference.”
15.
It is submitted that an unexplained long delay will render a claim stale. Further, reliance has been placed
upon the decision, between U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Bahu Rani reported on 2006 - SCC(I. & S) 1113, the Apex Court, on
the delay in seeking reference held that "it is the workman concerned to show that the dispute was raised within a
reasonable time and he was not responsible for any delay. Courts below must record a finding to this effect on the
basis of material placed on record by the workman."
16.
In view of the submissions made by both the counsels, perused the record.
17.
The submission of the Workman regarding non-supply of documents and not providing him opportunity
to produce evidence and opportunity of cross examination of the witness has been considered and decided by the
court vide order dated 21.1.2011 while passing the order on legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and the
domestic enquiry has already been held legal and valid. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Workman at this
stage is not acceptable. Further, perusal of the record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that the delinquent
workman was provided fair opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses and also for producing the evidence.
Hence, the contention of the Workman is not tenable.
18.
As regards the finding of the Enquiry, since in terms of charges proved against the delinquent and order
of the Disciplinary Authority regarding imposition of the punishment of the dismissal to the workman, the authority
have arrived at the conclusion of finding guilt of the Workman on the basis of evidence concluded during the
enquiry. As far as the contention of the workman is concerned that the Enquiry Officer has examined only one
management witness to prove the charges against the workman, and no other witness has been examined during
enquiry. It is noteworthy to mention here that it is quality of the testimony of the witness which matters to prove
any charge against the delinquent and not quantity of the witnesses. As per settled law that in criminal cases
conviction of the accused can be sustained even on the testimony of sole witness, if it is found reliable and trust
worthy. Whereas in this case workman failed to point out any discrepancy or contradiction in the testimony of
management witness examined during the enquiry. Therefore, this plea taken by Workman is not tenable. Further,
perusal of the enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that the delinquent has examined himself as a defense witness and in
his cross examination he has admitted to have prepared the pay sheets regarding the aforesaid four workmen for
withdrawal of the LLTC/LTC amount without obtaining any sanction order of the competent authority. Moreover,
the workman during the enquiry has also moved a representation dated 12.11.2002, wherein he has accepted the
finding of the enquiry and admitted the guilt that he has committed the mistake in preparation of pay sheets of the four
workmen for LLTC/LTC without sanction order. Since all the four workman have denied to have received the
LLTC/LTC amount from the Petitioner Workman, therefore, evidence of scientific experts regarding fingerprints and
signature was obtained, to prove the fact whether all the four workman have received the LLTC/LTC amount from
the workman by putting their signature or thumb impression on the pay sheet. As per finger print experts’ report,
signature and hand writing experts’ report, it has been proved that the signature or the thumb impression affixed on
the pay sheet does not belong to the workmen,i.e., S/ Sri D.Mallesham, General Mazdoor, D. Chandriah, General
Mazdoor, P. Posham, General Mazdoor, Sri E. Odelu, General Mazdoor. If the workman felt aggrieved over the
report of handwriting experts, he might have filed objection against such report before the Enquiry Officer or ask
Enquiry Officer to summon another expert report to contradict the same in order to produce defense in evidence. But
the workman did take any such steps. Therefore, he can not be permitted to raise the objection regarding finger print
expert’s report at this stage. Therefore, in view of the evidence as discussed above, there was sufficient evidence on
record before the Enquiry Officer to find his guilt regarding the charges levelled against the delinquent workman.
Since the workman in his representation dated 12.11.2002 has voluntarily admitted the contents of the enquiry report
sent to him and accepted the findings of the Management, he has also admitted his guilt and assured the Management
that he will not commit any such mistake hereafter and will do his job upto the satisfaction of his superiors while
praying for extenuating his mistake for this time. Thus, it is clear that the termination order dated 20.1.2003 passed
by 2nd Respondent regarding dismissal of the Workman from service is legal and justified.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3277
Thus, this Point No.II is answered accordingly.
19.
Point No. III: Now, we have to consider the question whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal
upon the Petitioner is commensurate to the misconduct committed by him in contravention of the provision of
Company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 & 25.23 or is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
20.
Hon’ble Apex Court in M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.1841 decided on
20.9.2010 Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“once it is held that domestic inquiry is legal and proper the next question which arises for consideration is as to
whether the punishment imposed on petitioner is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.”
21.
Since the domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 21.1.2011 and moreover, the
Workman has admitted his guilt vide representation dated 12.11.2002, now, we proceed to discuss whether
punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It is not
in dispute that both the charges have been proved in domestic enquiry. One can not possibly argue that the charges
were not serious in nature. In other words, the both the charges were of serious nature. As per charge No.1 workman
has prepared LLTC pay sheets without sanction orders of competent authority in respect of 4 workmen i.e., S/ Sri
D.Mallesham, General Mazdoor, D. Chandriah, General Mazdoor, P. Posham, General Mazdoor, Sri E. Odelu,
General Mazdoor, as they have not applied for it and he also manipulated records, and withdrew their LLTC/LTC
amounts by putting forged signature/thumb impression of aforesaid workmen. Thereby, he misappropriated the said
amount for his own purpose. Thus, he has committed misconduct in contravention of the company’s Standing Orders
No.25.1 as he, committed, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business and property. Further, he
was assigned the duties of preparation of pay sheets of workmen and he has admitted his guilt in his representation,
therefore, he committed willful deliberate act which was subversive and indiscipline and it was detrimental to the
interest of the company. Therefore, keeping in view the severeness of the charges proved and gravity of the
misconduct committed by the workman, the dismissal of the workman from the service was appropriate action.
Therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the workman Sri K.I. Raju can not be
said to be in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Moreover, it would be apposite to mention here
that on the earlier occasion the Workman had also committed misconduct of drawing 8 hours over-time allowance
during the month of October, 1991 though he had not worked at all. The Workman has also claimed one paid holiday
allowance on 05.11.1991 on which date he did not work. On the above proved charges, the Workman was dismissed
from the services of the Company with effect from 21.7.1993 vide Office Order dated 14.7.1993. In consideration of
his mercy petition, the Workman was re-appointed afresh as Grade-II Clerk, on an initial basic pay of Rs. 1158/- per
month vide Office Order dated 24.12.1994. The workman has not denied the above contention as made by the
Respondent. Therefore, it seems that he was habitual in committing such misconduct and retention of the Workman
in the service would be detrimental to the interest of the company. Therefore, in view of habitual blemish he deserves
the imposition of punishment of dismissal from employment.
22.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, reported in 2007 (8) SCJ 914, wherein the Apex
Court held - "... This Court in a number of judgments has held that the punishment of removal / dismissal is the
appropriate punishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds, and the Courts should be reluctant
to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman. That there is nothing wrong in the employer losing
confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. That, in such cases, there is no place
for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of
punishment.”
23.
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion I am of the considered opinion that punishment of
dismissal order of the workman passed by the Respondent is proportionate with the gravity of the charges and hence,
deserves to be upheld. Therefore, I find the petition filed by the Workman is devoid of merits. It fails and is
accordingly liable to be dismissed.
24.
Further, it is seen that dismissal order of the Petitioner from the services, was passed by the Respondent in
the year 2003 and he has raised the industrial dispute in the year 2008 by filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act,
1947 after a long delay of five years.
25.
Although there was no limitation period prescribed at that time for filing the petition u/s 2A(2). As per
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Bahu Rani reported on 2006 - SCC(I. &
S) 1113, the Apex Court, on the delay in seeking reference held that "it is the workman concerned to show that the
dispute was raised within a reasonable time and he was not responsible for any delay. Courts below must record a
finding to this effect on the basis of material placed on record by the workman."
26.
In view of above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the workman has not placed before the Court
any justifiable explanation for delay of five years in filing the petition u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, on
this count also, the Workman’s petition has become stale claim and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
3278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly.
27.
Point No.IV: In view of fore gone discussion in Points No.I, II, & III, it held that the workman is not
entitled to any relief as prayed for.
Thus, Point No. IV is answered accordingly.
ORDER
In that result, the petition is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the
23rd day of May, 2023.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Workman
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] लखनऊ ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22013/01/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/07/2023.
[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 43/2020
Ref. No. No. D/810/AB/2020/02/IRDDN
Rakesh Kumar V/s FCI
BETWEEN
1. Sri Rakesh Kumar S/o Sri Devi Prasad Village-Shekhapur P.O. Barkheda, Tehsil- Bisalpur,
District-Pilibhit (U.P.)
2. Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,
Shahajanpur (U.P.)
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3279
AND
1. The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, T.C.3,
V-Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)
2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.), District
Office, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)
AWARD
By letter No. D/810/AB/2020/02/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020 the present industrial dispute has been referred
for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section10 the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:-
“Whether the termination of the service of Sri Shyam Kumar S/o Sri Krisha Avtar, who was engaged in Roja
Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, for the period 08.08.2008 to
23.04.2010 is proper and justified”.
If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?”
Accordingly on 22.10.2020 an industrial dispute No. 43/2020, registered before this Tribunal.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that in spite of several opportunities granted to
the claiamnt/workman, he has not filed statement of claim.
Lastly on 17.01.2023 an order was passed quoted herein above.
“Today when the case was taken up workman, Sri Shyam Kumar or his authorized representative has not
turned up before this Tribunal nor any statement of claim, till date, so the present reference may be
dismissed”.
Sri Dhirendra Singh learned counsel for the F.C.I. argued that in spite of several opportunities, no claim has
been filed by claimant till date as such, keeping in view of the order dated 17.01.2023 the matter be
dismissed.
Finding & conclusion:-
Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order
to establish his claim as per the reference dated 03.09.2020.
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:-
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to
prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the
Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of
service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If
the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by
the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to
any relief’’.
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 208 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti V. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.
V.K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. V. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a partly is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led”.
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P.
P.A.C.C.S.C. Services Vs. Secretary-cum G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519;
wherein it has been held as under:-
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the
shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead
evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any
3280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the
reference has to be dismissed”.
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and, and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Lucknow
26.05.2023
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-
सह
-
] लखनऊ ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22013/01/2023-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/07/2023.
[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 44/2020
Ref. No. No. D/862/AB/2020/51/IRDDN
Khayali Ram V/s FCI
BETWEEN
1. Khayali Ram S/o Sri Babu Ram Village-Bhopatpur, P.O. & PS- Barkheda, Tehsil- Bisalpur,
District-Pilibhit (U.P.)
2. Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,
Shahajanpur (U.P.)
AND
1. The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, T.C.3,
V-Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)
2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.), District
Office, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3281
AWARD
By letter No. D No. D/862/AB/2020/51/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020 the present industrial dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section10 the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:-
“Whether the termination of the service of Sri Khyali Ram S/o Sri Babu Ram, who was engaged in Roja
Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, for the period 08.08.2008 to
23.04.2010 is proper and justified”.
If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?”
Accordingly on 22.10.2020 an industrial dispute No. 44/2020, registered before this Tribunal.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that in spite of several opportunities granted to
the claimant/workman, he has not filed statement of claim.
Lastly on 17.01.2023 an order was passed quoted herein above.
“Today when the case was taken up workman, Sri Khayali Ram or his authorized representative has not
turned up before this Tribunal nor any statement of claim, till date, so the present reference may be
dismissed”.
Sri Dhirendra Singh learned counsel for the F.C.I. argued that in spite of several opportunities, no claim has
been filed by claimant till date as such, keeping in view of the order dated 17.01.2023 the matter be
dismissed.
Finding & conclusion:-
Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order
to establish his claim as per the reference dated 03.09.2020.
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:-
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to
prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the
Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of
service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If
the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by
the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to
any relief’’.
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 208 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti V. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.
V.K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. V. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a partly is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led”.
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P.
P.A.C.C.S.C. Services Vs. Secretary-cum G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519;
wherein it has been held as under:-
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the
shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead
evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any
evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the
reference has to be dismissed”.
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and, and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Lucknow
26.05.2023
3282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-
सह
-
] लखनऊ ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la
,y-22013/01/2023-
- (lh.एम-II]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2023
S.O. 1475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 40/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/07/2023.
[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 40/2020
Ref. No. D/811/AB/2020/03/IRDDN
Shyam Kumar V/s FCI
BETWEEN
1. Sri Shyam Kumar S/o Sri Krishan Avtar Mohalla-Chaurasia Ghanta P.O.- Shankar Khas,
Tehsil- Sadar, District-Moradabad (U.P.)
2. Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,
Shahajanpur (U.P.)
AND
1. The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, T.C.3,
V-Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.)
2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.), District
Office, Shahjahanpur (U.P.)
AWARD
By letter No. No. D/811/AB/2020/03/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020 the present industrial dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section10 the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:-
“Whether the termination of the service of Sri Shyam Kumar S/o Sri Krisha Avtar, who was engaged in Roja
Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (U.P.) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, for the period 08.08.2008 to
23.04.2010 is proper and justified”.
If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?”
Accordingly on 22.10.2020 an industrial dispute No. 40/2020, registered before this Tribunal.
From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that in spite of several opportunities granted to
the claiamnt/workman, he has not filed statement of claim.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3283
Lastly on 17.01.2023 an order was passed quoted herein above.
“Today when the case was taken up workman, Sri Shyam Kumar or his authorized representative has not
turned up before this Tribunal nor any statement of claim, till date, so the present reference may be
dismissed”.
Sri Dhirendra Singh learned counsel for the F.C.I. argued that in spite of several opportunities, no claim has
been filed by claimant till date as such, keeping in view of the order dated 17.01.2023 the matter be
dismissed.
Finding & conclusion:-
Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order
to establish his claim as per the reference dated 03.09.2020.
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:-
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to
prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the
Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of
service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial court setting out
grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If
the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by
the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to
any relief’’.
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 208 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti V. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.
V.K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. V. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a partly is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led”.
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P.
P.A.C.C.S.C. Services Vs. Secretary-cum G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519;
wherein it has been held as under:-
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the
shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead
evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any
evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the
reference has to be dismissed”.
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and, and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow
26.05.2023
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
3284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (49/2018) izdkf”r djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-34]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2023
S.O. 1476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 49/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-34]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer
I D No. 49/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Anelingappa,
S/o Rangappa,
54/6, Near Chowdeshwari Temple,
Nandini Layout,
BANGALORE – 560096.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private
ed, No. 332, 13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
anagar, BANGALORE – 560 038.
2.The General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office, J C
, BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of
Industrial Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has
been arrived with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents.
Therefore, prayed to pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3285
for Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (50/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-33]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2023
S.O. 1477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-33]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 50/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Ravishankar,
S/o Shivalingappa,
No. 1217, 7th cross,
3rd Block, Nandini Layout,
BANGALORE – 560 096.
1.Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private
Limited, No. 332, 13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560 038.
2.The General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office, J C
Road, BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
3286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (51/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-32]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2023
S.O. 1478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.51/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-32]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
I D No. 51/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. V Manjunath Kumar,
S/o V Naidu,
151, Preethinagar,
Laxmidevinagar,
BANGALORE – 560 058.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560
038.
2. The
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3287
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (52/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[Lka- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-31]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2023
S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-31]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR,
Presiding Officer
I D No. 52/2018
3288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Kantharaju,
S/o Areve Gowda,
115, 6th Main, 6th Cross,
Mahalexminagar,
BANGALORE – 560 073
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560
038.
2. The
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited/
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (53/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-30]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 53/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-30]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3289
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP AT HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 53/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Satish J,
S/o jagannath,
1st Main, 7th Cross,
Nagasandra,
BANGALORE – 560 073.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560
038.
2. The
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
3290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (54/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-29]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 54/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-29]
SALONI, Dy. Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP AT HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 54/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Hanumantharaju,
S/o Hanumaiah,
Manjunathanagar,
Nagasandra,
BANGALORE – 560 073.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private
Limited, No. 332, 13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II
Stage, Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560 038.
2. The General Manager, Canara Bank, Head Office,
J C Road, BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3291
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (55/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-28]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 55/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-28]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP AT HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 55/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Gopal S K,
S/o Karianna,
Nelagadanahalli,
BANGALORE – 560 073.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560
038.
2. The General Manager, Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
3292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (56/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-27]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-27]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP AT HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 56/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Narayanappa,
S/o Siddiah,
303, 6th Cross, 1st Main,
Nagasandra,
BANGALORE – 560 073.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560
038.
2. The
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3293
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (57/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-24]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 57/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-24]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP At HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri Irfan Qamar, Presiding Officer
I D No. 57/2018
3294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Narasimha Murthy,
S/o Narasimhayya,
215, Manjunathanagar,
BANGALORE – 560 073.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE – 560
038.
2. The
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (60/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-25]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 60/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-25]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3295
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BENGALURU CAMP AT HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 60/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Rajanna M,
S/o Maranna,
125/844, 1st Cross,
Near Anjaneya Temple,
Mallasandra, T D Halli,
BANGALORE – 560 057.
1. Kashi
Security
and
Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE–560 038.
2. The General Manager, Canara Bank,
Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] cSxyksj ds iapkV (59/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-39025/01/2023- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-26]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
3296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-26]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU CAMP AT HYDERABAD
DATED
: 26th JULY 2023
PRESENT : Shri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
I D No. 59/2018
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
Sh. Ashok Birdar,
S/o Ramanna Gowda,
1553, 4th Cross,
T D Halli,
BANGALORE – 560 053.
1. Kashi Security and Consultancy
Services Private Limited, No. 332,
13th Main, 6th Cross, HAL II Stage,
Indiranagar, BANGALORE –
560 038.
2. The General Manager, Canara
Bank, Head Office, J C Road,
BANGALORE.
Appearances
I Party :
Sh. R Nagendra Naik
Advocate
II Party :
1. Sh. G L Vishwanath
Advocate
2. Sh. T R K Prasad
Advocate
1.
The petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity ‘the
Act’) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Kashi Security and Consultancy Services Private Limited /
Canara Bank who is Discharged from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 by both the Respondents.
2.
After Registering the matter notices were issued to parties who appeared. During the pendency of Industrial
Dispute parties filed Memo of Withdrawal alongwith Affidavit stating that an out of Court settlement has been arrived
with the Respondent No. 1 and they do not have any further claim against both the Respondents. Therefore, prayed to
pass consent award in the interest of justice.
3.
Perused the records, Applicant has filed Memo for Withdrawal dated 09.07.2023 in the present matter
voluntarily. The Respondents have submitted no Objection in that regard. Therefore, in view of the above Memo for
Withdrawal is allowed and the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 2A(2) of ID Act is dismissed as
withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived out of the Court accordingly. No Claim Award is passed. Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court at Camp Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 26th July 2023)
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3297
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1487.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार मेससᭅ
ᮨंटलाइन (एनसीआर) िबजनेस सॉ᭨यूशन ᮧा. िलिमटेड और अ᭠य, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 90 OF
2015) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/162/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 90 OF 2015) 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
Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and others, and The Worker/Union, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/162/2015 -IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 90 OF 2015
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and Others
AND
Their Workmen Union
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
:
M/s.Frontline (NCR) Business Solutionss Pvt. Ltd.
:
Absent
On behalf of M/s.Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. :
Absent.
On behalf of M/s. S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd.
:
Mr.Sushil Karmokar, Adv.
On behalf of Union
:
Absent.
Dated 30TH MAY, 2023.
AWARD
Today has been fixed for filing show cause by the workman/Union. Unfortunately, neither the workman
whose cause is involved in the present reference case nor the Purva Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied
Workers Union (CITU), which has espoused the present dispute are found absent when the matter is called. Employer
M/s.Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., are also found absent. The
contractor employer M/s.S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd is represented by its learned counsel Mr.Sushil Karmokar. The
Central Government, Min. of Labour vide its Order No. L-42011/162/2015-IR (DU) dated 02.11.2015 has referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of management of M/s.Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s.Chennai
Network Infrastructure Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Uttam Kumar Bera is legal and /
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? “Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd
is justified by denying reinstatement u/s 25(H) of ID Act, 1947. If not what relief the workman are entitled to?”
3298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the record, there is only Statement of Claim filed by the Union and Written statement filed by S&IB
Services Pvt. Ltd but there is neither oral or documentary evidence to substantiate and prove the claim of the
Union/Workman.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of view, uncorroborated claim statement is not sufficient to decide the issue under
reference.
The record shows that union/workman has stopped putting their appearance from 06.5.2019. Non-appearance
of the union/workman since for last four years, a presumption can be drawn that they are not interested to pursue and
proceed further with the dispute they have espoused.
In view of the above, no dispute award is passed.
Reference case no.90 of 2015 is disposed of.
Justice K.D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1488.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मैससᭅ लोकेनाथ िब᭨डसᭅ, पि᳟म बंगाल, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 21 OF 2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[ सं. एल-14011/1/2022-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 21 OF 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
M/s Lokenath Builders, West Bengal, and The Worker/ Union, which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-14011/1/2022-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 21 OF 2022
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s Lokenath Builders, West Bengal
AND
Their Workmen/ Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Management: M/s Lokenath Builders, W.B. : Present
On behalf of the Workmen
: None.
Dated 15th March, 2023
AWARD
The representative of the Management of Binnaguri Cantonment, Station Headquarter is present and who
files hazira.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3299
None appears from the side of Union and fails to file show-cause as directed.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the union which had put its appearance on 08.12.22 through authorised
representative and as well by its lawyer is no more interested to pursue the following dispute espoused by it.
The Ministry of labour vide its Order No. L-14011/1/2022 (IR (DU)) dated 11.04.22 has referred the
following issue:
“Whether the demand of Co-ordination Committee of Defence Civilian Workers, Darjeeling for reinstatement of the
services of Shri Sagar Thapa and 8 others (list attached) by the management of M/s Lokenath Builders, Alipurduar
(W.B) is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the disputant workers is entitled?”
Since the union is no longer pursuing the matte and even fails to file show-cause as ordered, it can be
assumed that no longer it has grievance against the Principal Employer as well as the Contractor Employer.
Accordingly, no dispute award is passed and reference case no. 21 of 2022 is disposed of.
Send copy to the Ministry for doing needful.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1489.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
Ფांटम लोबल इंᮨाटेक (पी) िलिमटेड बीसी-200, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥
के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 14 OF 2020) को जैसा ᳰक
अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙
ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/15/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 14 OF 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
Quantum Global Infratech (P) Ltd BC-200, and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the
award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/15/2020 -IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 14 OF 2020
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Quantum Global Infratech (P) Ltd BC-200
AND
Their Workmen
3300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance :
On behalf of Management: Ms Indus Tower
: Advocate S.K. Singh.
On behalf of the Workmen
: Sri Joy Deb Kanp (Workman)
Dated 9th March, 2023
AWARD
The Management of M/s Indus Tower put appearance through Ld. Advocate S.K. Singh and others and who
file Vakalatnama.
The concerned workman Sri Joy Dev Kanp files petition supported by an affidavit and Xerox copy of his
voter card and where he has prayed for dismissal of the present reference case as dispute has been settled outside the
tribunal. His employer has reinstated him in the job. Thus, he has prayed for passing no dispute award. Considered.
The Govt. of India vide letter No. L-42011/15/2020 (IR (DU) dated 17.07.2020 has referred the following
dispute for adjudication:
“Whether the demand of the Purv” Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Workers Union vide letter No. Nil dated
31.07.2018 to for reinstatement of Shri Joy Deb Kanp with previous service conditions and back wages is proper,
legal and justified? If yes, what relief Shri Joy Deb Kanp is entitled to and from which date? What other directions, if
any, are necessary in the matter?”
Since, the workman has already been reinstated by the Management/ by his employer and he does not want to
pursue with the present case anymore and as such, the present Reference Case No. 14 of 2020 is disposed of.
No dispute Award is passed accordingly.
Send copy to the Ministry for doing needful.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1490.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
महाᮧबंधक, आरती कॉटन िम᭨स, दासनगर, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥
के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 20 OF 2020) को जैसा ᳰक
अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ
था l
[सं. एल-42011/23/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 20 OF 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
The General Manager, Arati Cotton Mills, Dasnagar, and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/23/2020-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.20 OF 2020
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
General Manager, Arati Cotton Mills, Dasnagar
AND
Their Workmen
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3301
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
: Present
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated 10th March, 2023
AWARD
The Management of M/s Arati Cotton Mills is found present through its Ld. Counsel. On the other hand, all
five Unions who have espoused the present dispute have failed to appear inspite of due service of notice of appearance
sent to them by Speed Post as per track report.
Record shows the Authorized Representative of those five unions have failed to put their appearance since
the day this Tribunal has received the present reference case from the Ministry of Labour on 25.09.2020 and inspite of
having received notice of reference sent to them vide Regd. Post dated 04.11.2020.
Such conducts as the part of the five unions prove that they are no longer interested to pursue the dispute may
be they no longer have any grievance against the Management.
The Govt. of India, through the Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-42011/23/2020-I.R (DU) dated
27.07.2020 has referred the following dispute for adjudication:-
(1) Whether the demand of the Union to regularize the services of contract workers (list of 412 workers attached)
in a phased manner in the establishment of M/s Arati Cotton Mills (principal employer) through the
contractors mainly M/s Tapsai Dhara & M/s M.M. Mondal is proper, legally tenable & /or justified? If yes,
what relief these workers are entitled to and what other direction, if any are necessary in the matter?
(2) Whether the demand of the Union to consider a hide in wage amounting to Rs,100/- per day in addition to the
minimum wage as per State Govt. Notification as prevalent in the Industry Keeping in view the nature of
work being performed by the contract workers is proper, legally tenable and justified? If yes, what relief the
said workers are entitled to and what other direction, if any, are necessary in the matter?
In the above, the present reference case No. 20 of 2020 is disposed of. No dispute Award is passed accordingly.
Send copy of Award to the Ministry.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1491.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार मुय
महाᮧबंधक, बीएसएनएल टेलीकॉम फैᮝी, कोलकाता,, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ
िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 23 OF 2020) को
जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को
ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-40011/17/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 23 OF 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
The Chief General Manager, BSNL Telecom Factory, Kolkata, and The Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-40011/17/2020-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
3302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 23 OF 2020
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
The Chief General Manager, BSNL Telecom Factory, Kolkata
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of Management, BSNL
: Absent
On behalf of the Workmen/Union
: Absent
Dated 18th July, 2023
AWARD
The Union which has espoused the present dispute fails to put appearance despite due service of notice upon
it.
No one appear on behalf of the Management B.S.N.L. when the matter is called.
None appearance of Union despite having knowledge of the present reference case an inference can be drawn
that either it is no more interested to proceed with the dispute or it has no more grievance against the Management of
B.S.N.L. over the issue under the reference.
Be that as it may, the Central Govt., Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-40011/17/2020-IR(DU) dated
19.10.2020 has referred the following dispute U/s 10(I)(d) & (2A) of the I.D. Act as follows:-
“Whether the demand of the National federation of Telecom Employees, Telecom factory Circle, Kolkata to
regularise the strike period from 18.02.2019 to 20.02.2019 as sanctioned leave based on the earlier precedence of the
management of BSNL, Kolkata and allow the payment of deducted wage to the workers is proper and legally tenable
under I.D. Act, 1947? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to ? What directions, if any, are necessary in the
matter ?”.
Unfortunately, there is no iota of materials in the record to decide the above issue.
In view of the above no dispute award is passed and accordingly Reference Case No. 23 of 2020 is disposed
of.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1492.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मैससᭅ टेᲣो सेवा ᮧदाता वोडाफोन आइिडया िलिमटेड, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध
मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 09 OF 2019) को
जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को
ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -40011/8/2019-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 09 OF 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
M/s Techno Service Provider of Vodafone Idea Ltd, and The Worker /Union, which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-40011/8/2019-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3303
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 09 OF 2019
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Vodafone Idea Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen/ Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Management: M/s Techno Service
: Mr. Subhajit Roy
On behalf of the Workmen
: None.
Dated 16th May, 2023
AWARD
Mr. Subhajit Roy, a staff and Authorised Representative of M/s Techno Service Provider of Vodafone Idea
Ltd. is present.
Unfortunately, the Union which has espoused the case of the retrenched contractor workmen and who have
not been provided compensation or paid wages at minimum rate has failed to appear.
Record shows that notice of reference sent to it was duly received by it as per A.D. Card dated 01.06.2019
and which prove that Union is well aware of the present dispute raised by it before Labour Commissioner (Central)
being referred to this Tribunal by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour for adjudication.
So, non-appearance of the Union and its failure to file Claim Statement give rise to a presumption that it is no
more interested to pursue with the dispute raised by it or it no more has any grievance against the Contractor
Employer for non-adhering to minimum wage or not providing retrenchment benefits and compensation to their
retrenched employee of the contractor.
Therefore, there is nothing on record to adjudicate the issue “Whether the action of the management of
M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd., Kolkata and their service provider M/s Telecom Services in denying the payment of
retrenchment benefit to the concerned workmen is legal or justified? Whether the central minimum rate of wages is
applicable in respect of workers deployed on outsourcing basis in M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. is legal or justified? If not,
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?” And which has been referred vide Order No. L-40011/8/2019-IR
(DU)) Dated 02.05.2019 to this Tribunal for adjudication.
In the above, no dispute award is passed. Accordingly, Reference No. 09 of 2019 is disposed of.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1493.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
िनदेशक (᳞िᲦगत), एंᮟयू यूल एंड कंपनी िलिमटेड, कोलकाता, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 15 OF
2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/175/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
3304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 15 OF 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
The Director (Personal), Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd., Kolkata, and The Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/175/2021-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 15 OF 2022
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
The Director (Personal), Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd., Kolkata
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
: Present
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated 13th March, 2023
AWARD
Today too the Representative of the Union is found absent, when the matter is called, while Ld. Advocate
from the side of the Management is found present.
The record shows it was the Union who has raised the following dispute before the Government and who has
referred the same to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Order No. L-42011/175/2021-IR (DU) dated 08.02.2022. The
issue involved is “Whether the action of the management of Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., Kolkata in treating their two
units namely 1. Andrew Yule and company Ltd. Electrical Kolkata Operations. Switchgear Unit, and 2. Andrew Yule
& Company Ltd., Electrical Kolkata Operations, Brentford Unit Functioning as two (2) factories under the same
management M/s. Andrew Yule & Company Ltd. in same locality with unified balance sheet for closure of the same
under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Rules framed thereunder is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what reliefs
the disputant Brentford Electric (India) Ltd. Workmen’s Union, Kolkata are entitled to and what other directions are
necessary in the matter?”
Unfortunately, the Union which has raised such dispute fails to appear and proceed with the hearing of the
dispute raised by it inspite of having received notice of this Reference Case sometime in the month of September,
2022 as per postal acknowledgement card.
Therefore, from such conduct of the Union, it can be safely assumed that it no longer wants to pursue the
dispute or it has no more grievance against the Management.
Accordingly, No dispute Award is hereby passed and Reference Case No. 15 of 2022 is disposed of.
Send copy of Award to the Ministry.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1494.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
खरदाह जूट िम᭨स िलिमटेड, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 52 OF 2015) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/98/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3305
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 52 OF 2015) 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
Khardah Jute Mills Ltd, and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/98/2015-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 52 OF 2015
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Khardah Jute Mills Ltd
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of Management : Absent.
On behalf of the Workmen
: Absent.
Dated 29.05.2023
AWARD
The management of Khardah Jute Mills Ltd and National Jute Manufacturing Corporation Ltd and the Union
are found absent when the matter is called. The union which has espoused the dispute too is found absence. Record
shows Union had put its appearance through its General Secretary Mr. Karthi Ghosh and has filed Claim Statement.
But the management despite of due service of notice upon it had failed to appear. But record shows the Union too has
failed to put its appearance and proceed with the hearing of this case since 29.4.2000. Therefore, a presumption can
be drawn that the Union is no more interested to proceed with the dispute raised by it.
The Central Government, Min. of Labour order No. L-42011/98/2015-IR(DU) dated 01.9.2015 has referred
the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of the management of National Jute Manufacturing Ltd (NJMC Ltd) in closing down the
Khardah Jute Mill resulting in termination of the services of 1074 nos. of contractual workers without considering the
National Jute Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. Permanent Employees & Workers Union is legal and/or justified? If
not what relief workmen are entitled to?
None appears for the Union and its failure to proceed with the hearing of the case by adducing evidence
shows that union is not interested in pursuing the dispute raised by it.
That apart, I do not find materials to corroborate the content of claim statement filed by the union. In the
above, no dispute award is passed.
Accordingly, Ref. No. 52 of 2015 is disposed of.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1495.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
रा᳦ीय फैशन ᮧौ᳒ोिगकᳱ सं᭭थान, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 07 OF 2017) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/63/2016-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
3306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1495—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 07 OF 2017) 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
National Institute of Fashion Technology, and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/63/2016-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 07 OF 2017
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
National Institute of Fashion Technology and another
AND
Their Workmen/Union
Appearance :
On behalf of management National
Institute of Fashion Technology
: Mr. Anirudh Dutta, Adv.
On behalf of management M/s.Vishali
Security Investigation (P) Ltd.
: Absent.
On behalf of Union
: Absent.
Dated 30th May, 2023
AWARD
The management of National Institute of Fashion Technology is represented by its learned counsel Anirudh
Dutta. None appears from the side of contractor employer M/s.Vishali Security Investigation (P) Ltd and the Union
of All Bengal Security & Allied Workmen Union, when the matter is called.
The record shows notice of this case was duly served upon all the three parties in the month of April 2018 as
per AD card lying in the record. Further undelivered enveloped addressed to the General Secretary of the Union
shows that the General Secretary refused to accept the notice of this case sent through registered post. There is an
endorsement to that effect in the order sheet dated 26.7.2018. It is settledlaw refusal is a good service. Therefore, it is
seen the Union which espoused the present dispute inspite of having knowledge of the present reference case for the
reason best known to it has failed to pursue the same.
The record further shows that one of the workman Renuka Patra had filed Statement of Claim on 05.9.2019
and she was represented by Mr.Saibal Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel. The case has been fixed for filing rejoinder by the
Union. The Union/Renuka Patra has failed to take any step thereafter Record shows since 04.3.2020, the union has
stopped appearing before this Tribunal and proceed further with the hearing of the case. The Union/Renuka Patra has
failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the contention made in her claim statement. Therefore, there is nothing
in the record to decide the issue. under reference save and except the uncorroborated claim statement.
The Central Government, Min. of Labour Order No. L-42011/63/2016-IR(DU) dated 22-12-2016 following
issue wasreferred to this Tribunal for adjudication:—
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.Vaishali Security Private Limited an agency of National
Institute of Fashion Technology, Kolkata in terminating the services of Smt.Renuka Patra and Sri Manoj Kumar
Singh, Security Guards without notices are legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman are
entitled to?”
In view of the above no dispute award is passed and reference no. 07 of 2017 is disposed of.
Justice K.D.BHUTIA Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3307
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1496.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
टेलीकॉम फ़ैटरी, कलकᱫा, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 08 OF 1990) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-40011/2/80-डी-II(बी)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 08 OF 1990) 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
Telecom Factory, Calcutta, and The Worker /Union, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-40011/2/80-D-II (B)]
D .K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 08 OF 1990
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Telecom Factory, Calcutta
AND
Their Workmen/union
Appearance :
On behalf of the Management
:
Advocate Mr.Rohan Raj
On behalf of the Workmen/union
:
Advocate Mr.Saibal Mukherjee
Dated: 30th
May, 2023
AWARD
This is a dispute in between Telecom Factory, Calcutta under India Post and Telegraph and its galvanizers.
This reference case has a long chequered history. All India Post and Telegraph Industrial Workers Union had
raised a dispute challenging the de-categorization of galvanizers/ pickers who were posted at Calcutta Telecom
Factory from skilled to unskilled and for merging of pay scale of Rs.75-110 and scale Rs.85-128 to scale of Rs. 210-
290 in 3rd Pay Commission w.e.f. 01-01-1973 as it is their contention they were already upgraded to the skilled
categories by the management of Telecom Factory, Alipur, Calcutta vide work note no. 5918 dated 11-06-1971,
before the Govt. of India. But who refused to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal.
Thus finding no other alternative they moved the Hon’ble High Court and filed a writ petition No.132374 of
1982 and which was disposed of on 10-01-1989. The Hon’ble High Court while disposing the writ petition no.132374
of 1982, directed the Govt. to refer the dispute raised by the union to an appropriate Tribunal for determination
whether the galvanisers working in the Telecom Factory, Calcutta are to be deemed as skilled workers or not.
Thus, as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the Central Govt. in exercise of power conferred by
section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the following issue to this Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L-40011 /2/ 80- D-II (B) dated 10-04-1990.
3308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the demand of All India Post and Telegraphs Industrial Workers Union for treating the galvanisers
working in the Telecom Factory, Calcutta as skilled workers and also allow them such emoluments and benefits on
categorisation as skilled workers is justified. If yes, to what relief the workmen concerned re entitled and from what
date?”
So, it appears the galvanizers working at Telecom Factory, Calcutta have been fighting this legal battle for
more than 40 years. In between several events and developments had taken place.
On separation of Department of Telecommunication from the Department of Post and Telegraph, Department
of Telecom was responsible for running telecom services in the entire country. The Govt. of India corporatize the
operation wing of Department of Telecom on 01-10-2000 and named it as B.S.N.L. BSNL operate as public sector
under the ownership of Department of Telecommunication. Therefore, All India Post and Telegraphs Industrial
Workers Union which has espoused the dispute of galvanisers working in Telecom Factory, Calcutta after
incorporation of BSNL changed its nomenclature and renamed itself as BSNL Employees Union.
However, it is the case of the Union that Galvanisers working in Telecom Factory at Alipur, Calcutta were
originally categorised as Semi-Skilled workmen in the pay scale of Rs.75-110 along with special pay of Rs.5/- per
month. On introduction of semi-mechanized system in the factory w.e.f. 01-09-1971, they galvanisers working there
were categorized as skilled workmen in the pay scale of Rs.85-128. That on up gradation and revision in their pay
scale, they were not allowed to draw special pay of Rs.5/- which was otherwise paid to them as unskilled workmen in
pay scale of Rs.75-110. They were upgraded from unskilled category with new pay scale of Rs.85-128 on the strength
of work note no.5918 dated 11-06-1971, issued by the management of Calcutta Telecom Factory at Alipur.
It is their case that in view of new pay commission in terms of Central Civil Service (Revision of Pay) Rules,
1973 both the scale of Rs.75-110 and Rs.85-128d were merged and replaced by a new scale of Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 01-
01-1973. They have alleged that they have been illegally de-categorized as unskilled from skilled and deprived them
of special pay of Rs.5/- per month to which they were otherwise entitled to earlier as semi-skilled workmen.
The Union brought to the notice of the Director General of Post and Telegraphs, vide its letter dated 14-05-
1980 about up gradation of Galvanisers from skilled to unskilled and they have demanded fixation of their pay in the
scale of Rs.260-400.
It has been contended, once they had been categorised as skilled workmen they cannot be reverted back to
semi-skilled category.
The Central Govt. appointed a Central Trade Review Committee for the purpose of considering the various
anomalies in categorisation of different class of employees. Such committee submitted a report in the year 1983
recommending the Galvanisers should be placed in skilled category in the pay band of Rs.260-400, but such
recommendation was ignored by the management. Thus, the Union has claimed Galvanisers of Telecom Factory,
Calcutta be categorised as skilled workmen w.e.f. 01-09-1971 and fixed their pay scale at Rs.260-400 in accordance
with the recommendation of Central Trade Review Committee considering them as skilled workmen.
The management in its written statement has stated Galvanisers employed in Telecom Factory were brought
under the scale of pay of Rs.35-60 as semi-skilled workmen w.e.f. 01-01-1947 with special pay of Rs.5/- per month as
per First Pay Commission recommendation. Accordingly, an order to that effect was issued by the Directorate
(Director General), Post and Telegraph, New Deli on 27-05-1950.
During 2nd Pay Commission, pay of Galvanisers was revised to the scale of Rs.75-110 from Rs.35-60 with
special pay of Rs.5/- per month. The Galvanisers working in Calcutta Telecom Factory remained in the said scale till
31-08-1971. On introduction of semi-mechanized system in the galvanising shop a settlement was entered between the
local management and the Union, Galvanisers were provisionally promoted to the category of skilled workmen and
fixed their scale of pay of Rs.85-128 w.e.f. 01-09-1971 and withdrew the special pay of Rs.,5/- per month as
recommended by 2nd Pay Commission.
However, during 3rd Pay Commission both scales of Rs.75-110 and Rs.85-128 were merged and new pay
scale was fixed at Rs.210-290 w.e.f. 01-01-1971. The 3rd Pay Commission categorised the Galvanizers as semi-
skilled workmen. The recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission was accepted by the Govt. of India and also acted
upon. The Galvanisers working in Calcutta Telecom Factory raised no objection against the revised pay scale. Thus, it
is prayed for dismissal of the reference.
The Union in order, to prove its claim and case has examined one Sri Satyaranjan Chandra, but the Union has
failed to produce him to adduce further evidence and to face cross examination. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to
take into consideration the part evidence of Sri Satyaranjan Chandra and treated the same as expunged.
Union has examined Sri Ganesh Ghosh as W.W. 2. The Union has produced 9(nine) documents which have
been marked as Exhibit-W.1 to W.9 about which I shall be discussing in the later part of this award.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3309
The management has examined Sri Biswanath Bhattacharya, Assistant General Manager, Telecom Factory,
Gopalpur, South 24 Parganas as M.W.1. From the side of the management 3(three) documents have been produced
which have been marked as M.1 to M.3.
From the claim statement of the Union, it appears the dispute relates to degradation of Galvanisers working
at Calcutta Telecom by categorising them as semi-skilled workmen and fixing their pay scale at Rs.210-290 by 3rd
Pay Commission, when the Galvanisers were already categorised as skilled workmen by the local management of
Calcutta Telecom Factory on introduction of semi-mechanized system in the galvanising shops by issuing a work note
no.5918 dated 11-06-1971 and when the scale of those Galvanisers who have been promoted to the skilled category
was also given benefit of the scale of Rs.85-128.
It is admitted fact that 3rd Pay Commission was given effect from 01-01-1973. Surprisingly, the Union has
challenged the recommendation made by 3rd Pay Commission and for categorising Galvanisers as unskilled workmen
and accordingly fixing lower pay scale, only sometime in the year 1982. A question arises, why such delay in raising
the dispute? It is true law of limitation does not apply in Industrial Dispute, but it should be raised as soon as possible
after they have been arisen.
It is interesting to note, further the Union heavily relied on the report submitted by the Central Trade Review
Committee in the year 1983 and which has recommended Galvanisers as skilled workmen and recommended pay
band of Rs.260-400.
It is a matter of common knowledge that pay commission is set up by Govt. of India and give its
recommendation regarding changes in the salary structure of its employees. Pay Commission is set up on a regular
basis to review and make recommendation on the work and pay structure of a Civil and Military Division of Govt. Of
India. Normally Commission is given 18 months’ time from the date of its constitution to make its recommendation.
The Commission issue notice inviting various stake holders, interested persons, staff unions, Ministers to submit their
Memorandum before passing the final recommendation. It is equally true the Govt. may accept the recommendation
or may reject the same. Once the recommendation is accepted and acted upon even, then whoever has accepted and
acted upon, it is estopped from raising question on the validity of the recommendation made by 3rd pay commission
which was given effect from 01.01.1973, merely on a report of a committee formed after the recommendation.
The case of the union is solely based on Ext-W-1, the work note no 5918 dated 1.06.1971, issued by the local
management of Calcutta Telecom Factory, after introduction of semi mechanized system in Galvanizing shop of the
factory and has categorized Galvanizers as skilled workmen and fixed their pay scale from Rs.85-128 from Rs.75-110.
Nothing has come on record to show such matter was brought by the local management and the Union to the
notice of the pay commission committee. It was the responsibility of the representative of the workmen, who is
assumed to have basic knowledge about the functioning of Pay Commission to submit its memorandum with regard to
categorization of the galvanizer as skilled workmen or could have requested or demanded the local management to
apprise the pay commission on categorization of galvanizer who as per second pay recommendation was categorized
as semi-skilled workmen to skilled.
Further, it appears representative of workmen by raising this industrial dispute seek relief on the
recommendation made by Central Trade Review Committee sometime in the year 1983. In other words- the Trade
Union who has espoused the dispute wants this Tribunal to pass an award giving effect to a recommendation made in
1983 and to revisit the 3rd Pay Commission recommendation which was given effect from 01-01-1971 and was also
acted upon.
It has come on record, there were/are three Telecom Factories in India and which are located at Calcutta,
Jabalpur and Bombay.
Then a question may arise, whether Galvanisers working in Calcutta Telecom Factory only can be declared
as skilled workmen, ignoring galvanisers working in other two factories of Bombay and Jabalpur, when all of them
being employees of central government are governed by same pay commission recommendation? Whether can there
be two different classes of workmen who are similarly placed and doing same nature work under the same govt.
department and whose mode of recruitment and qualification is same?
As per recommendation of 3rd Pay Commission which was given effect by the then Post and Telegraph
Department from 01-01-1971 and vide which galvanizers working in Telecom Factory being categories as semi-
skilled workmen and pay scale was fixed at Rs.210-290, then automatically such pay commission will also have effect
to those galvanizers working in telecom factories at Jabalpur and Bombay. If this Tribunal is to declare galvanizers
working only in Telecom Factory at Calcutta as skilled workmen on the basis of the work note dated 11-06-1971
issued by the Assistant Manager, Telecom Factory, Alipur, Calcutta, by passing or ignoring the 3rd pay
recommendation and which had categorized galvaniser as semi-skilled workmen, then it will create inequality among
equals and discriminatory treatment against galvanizers working in Jabalpur and Bombay telecom factories. Law is
that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
3310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is seen the galvanizers of Telecom Factory, Calcutta has raised the present industrial dispute challenging
the recommendation of 3rd Pay Commission on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Manager of telecom
Factory at Calcutta and not even approved by the ultimate Authority, the General Manager, the controlling Officer.
That apart Exhibit-W.1 shows that on introduction of semi mechanised system in the galvanising shop, 7
galvanisers/ Picklers were promoted to in the post of Mistry Skilled in the scale of Rs.110-180 purely on a temporary
basis for a period not exceeding six months w.e.f.01.01.1971and remaining 50 galvanisers (S.S.) and Picklers (S.S.)
were provisionally promoted as galvanisers skilled in the scale of Rs.85-128 w.e.f. 01-09-1971 subject to notification
within six months in accordance with the approved job description of the galvanisers skilled.
Unfortunately, neither the management of Telecom Factory, Calcutta who issued such work note nor the
union who have raised the dispute failed to produce the further notification vide which their provisional promotion
have been regularized after the period of six months.
Exhibit- W.2 the resolution of the meeting held between local management and union on 26.05.1971, shows
that semi mechanized system which was introduced in Telecom Factory, Calcutta would be experienced for six
months and thereafter it would be reviewed. In case schedule out turn as declared by Annexure A was not achieved
the promoted workers would be reverted back to their original post.
Exhibit-W.3 the minutes of the meeting dated 03-05-1972 no doubt shows that Manager Sri P.K. Biswas of
Telecom Factory in the said meeting declared that semi-mechanized system of work will continue. In the said meeting
union had raised issue of payment of special pay of Rs.5/- per month to the skilled workmen. That Manager had
assured that he would take up the issue with the higher authorities.
Here a question arises, if the management of Calcutta Telecom Factory intends to categories the galvanisers
as skilled workmen, then General Manager who was the Controlling Officer of all three Telecom Factories ought to
have submitted his submission before the 3rd Pay Commission, for categorisation of galvanisers working in all three
factories as skilled. Further a question arises, how the General Manager, the Controlling Officer of all three Telecom
Factories situated at Calcutta, Jabalpur and Bombay could treat the galvanisers of Calcutta factory as skilled
workmen, when the 2nd Pay Commission too had categorised it as semi-skilled job and later 3rd commission too
catagorised the same as semi-skilled workmen.
So, it is seen General Manager, Telecom Factories have created two categories of galvanisers/pricklers, those
working in Calcutta factory were treated as skilled labour and they were given pay scale of Rs.85-128 whereas he
continued to treat galvanisers/pricklers working in Jabalpur and Bombay Telecom Factories as semi-skilled workmen
at pay scale of Rs.75-110. Thus, it appears the management by issuing the Exhibit-1 has created two classes of
workmen placed in same circumstances. Therefore, this Tribunal holds Exhibit-W.1, the basis of this present dispute
to be illegal.
Prima facie it is seen by filing the present reference case the Union has challenged the recommendation of
3rd Pay Commission.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in A.C. Chandra –vs- State of Jharkhand and
Ors. on 21-08-2007 has been pleased to observe granting pay scales is purely executive function and court should not
interfere with the same. It may have cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Govt. and authorities.
Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body.
Since the recommendation of 3rd Pay Commission has categorised galvanisers as semi-skilled workmen in
the pay scale of Rs.210-290, this Tribunal has no locustandi to declare the recommendation of the 3rd Pay
Commission to be illegal and invalid in respect of 57 galvanisers of Telecom Factory at Calcutta, merely because the
local management of Telecom Factory at Calcutta for reasons best known to it had categorised them as skilled
workmen w.e.f. 01-09-1971 and that too for six months and ignoring the fact galvanisers working in Jabalpur and
Bombay factories were working in the category of semi-skilled workmen at the relevant time. More so it is not the
case of the mangement semi mechanised work in galvanising shop was introduced only in Calcutta and not in Jabalpur
and Bombay.
In view of the above this Tribunal is of view the dispute raised by All India Post and Telegraph Industrial
Workers Union for treating the galvanisers working in Telecom Factory at Calcutta as skilled workers and granting
them such emoluments and benefits as skilled workers to be misconceived and in contrary to the recommendation
made by the 3rd Pay Commission. The demands made by the Union is found illegal.
Accordingly, the Reference Case No.8 of 1990 is dismissed and award to that effect is passed.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3311
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1497.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार मेससᭅ
ᮨंटलाइन (एनसीआर) िबजनेस सॉ᭨यूशन ᮧा. िलिमटेड और अ᭠य, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के
बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 16 OF
2015) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/20/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 16 OF 2015) 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
Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and others, and The Worker /Union, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/20/2015 (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.16 OF 2015
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and others
AND
Their Workman/Union
Appearance :
On behalf of Management:
M/s.Frontline (NCR) Business Solutionss Pvt. Ltd.
:
Absent.
On behalf of M/s.Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. :
Absent.
On behalf of Union/workman
:
Absent.
Dated 30TH MAY, 2023.
AWARD
Today has been fixed for filing show cause by the workman/Union. Unfortunately, neither the workman
whose cause is involved in the present reference case nor Purva Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Workers
Union (CITU), which has espoused the present dispute are found absent when the matter is called. Employer
M/s.Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., are also found absent.
3312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Central Government, Min. of Labour vide its Order No. L-42011/20/2015-(IR (DU)) dated
25.02.2015/05.3.2015 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of management of M/s.Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s.Chennai
Network Infrastructure Limited is justified in denying job to Shri Ratan Das is legal and / justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to? “Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd is justified by denying
reinstatement u/s 25(H) of ID Act, 1947. If not what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In the record, there is only Statement of Claim filed by the Union and Written statement filed by S&IB
Services Pvt. Ltd, but there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to substantiate and prove the claim of the
Union/Workman.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of view, uncorroborated claim statement is not sufficient to decide the issue under
reference.
The record shows that union/workman has stopped putting their appearance from 04.11.2019. Non-
appearance of the union/workman for more than three years, a presumption can be drawn that they are not interested
to pursue and proceed further with the dispute which they have espoused.
In view of the above, no dispute award is passed.
Reference case no.16 of 2015 is disposed of.
Justice K.D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1498.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार बनᭅ
᭭टᱹडडᭅ कंपनी िलिमटेड, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 13 OF 2019) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[ सं. एल-41011/24/2019-आईआर((बी-I)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 13 OF 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
Burn Standard Co. Ltd., and The Worker/Union, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-41011/24/2019 -IR (B-I)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 13 OF 2019
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen/Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Management: Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
:
Ld. Advocate Mr. R. Talukdar
On behalf of the Workmen
:
None
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3313
Dated 02nd March, 2023
AWARD
Today has been fixed for filing claim statement by the joint Secretary, Burn Standard Men’s Congress, and
the Union, upon when notice of appearance has been duly served as per A. D Card.
Unfortunately, the Union has failed to appear when the matter is called. Sh. Sushant Roy, one of the
workmen, who had put appearance before the tribunal as the last date has failed to appear.
Therefore, non is found from the side of Union when the matter is called.
Further, the Management, upon whom notice was duly served as per A.D Card on 25.07.2019 too has failed
to appear. Interestingly, the notice sent to the Management in the same address on 15.09.22 has returned undelivered
with postal endorsement ‘Left’. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir
Javir Chand reported in (1989)1 S.C.C 264. Such service is deemed to be satisfactory.
That apart Order dated 18.09.2019 shows that both sides were present on the said date. Thus, both sides are
well aware about the pendency of this reference case.
Inspite of having knowledge about the present case and even after lapse of more than three years the union on
whose behest the present reference has been made by the Govt. of India has failed to file its claim statement.
For the conduct of the parties as discussed above it can be inferred that union which has raised the present
dispute is not interested to proceed with the same.
The Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-41011/24/2019 -IR (B-I) dated 01.07.2019 has referred the
following issues for adjudication:-
“Whether the action on the part of the Management of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. a Central Public Sector Under Taking
under Ministry of Railways in terminating the services of 57 regular workers Sh. Sushant Roy and 56 Ors. (list
enclosed) without compliance of Section 25 F and 25N of the ID Act, 12947 is legal & justified? If not, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
But, at present there is no material whatsoever for adjudication of the aforesaid issues as the union even after
lapse of three years has failed to file its statement of claim along with supporting document.
Accordingly, the Reference No. 13/19 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
An award to that effect is passed.
Inform the Ministry for doing needful.
Supply copy of this order / award to the parties as per law.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1499.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मेससᭅ ᮨंटलाइन (एनसीआर) िबजनेस सॉ᭨यूशन ᮧा. िलिमटेड और अ᭠य, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और
कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट
(संदभᭅ संया 91 OF 2015) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट
कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/160/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 91 OF 2015) 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
Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and others, and The Worker/Union, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/160/2015 (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
3314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 91 OF 2015
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and others
AND
Their Workman/Union
Appearance :
On behalf of Management:
M/s.Frontline (NCR) Business Solutionss Pvt. Ltd.
:
Absent.
On behalf of M/s.Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. :
Absent.
On behalf of M/s. S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd.
:
Mr.Sushil Karmakar, Adv.
On behalf of Union/workman
:
Absent.
Dated 30TH MAY, 2023.
AWARD
Today has been fixed for filing show cause by the workman/Union. Unfortunately, neither the workman
whose cause is involved in the present reference case nor Purva Medinipur Zela Security Service & Allied Workers
Union (CITU), which has espoused the present dispute are found absent when the matter is called. Employer
M/s. Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., are also found absent. The
contractor employer M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd is represented by its learned counsel Mr. Sushil Karmakar.
The Central Government, Min. of Labour vide its Order No. L-42011/160/2015-(IR (DU)) dated 02.11.2015
has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal.
“Whether the action of management of M/s.Frontline (NCR) Business Solutions, contractor of M/s.Chennai
Network Infrastructure Limited is justified by terminating the service of Shri Lakshmikanta is legal and / justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to? “Whether the present contractor M/s S&IB Services Pvt. Ltd is justified by
denying reinstatement u/s 25(H) of ID Act, 1947. If not what relief the workman is entitled to?”
In the record, there is only Statement of Claim filed by the Union and Written statement filed by S&IB
Services Pvt. Ltd, but there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to substantiate and prove the claim of the
Union/Workman.
Therefore, this Tribunal is of view, uncorroborated claim statement is not sufficient to decide the issue under
reference.
The record shows that union/workman has stopped putting their appearance from 06.5.2019. Non-appearance
of the union/workman since for last four years, a presumption can be drawn that they are not interested to pursue and
proceed further with the dispute they have espoused.
In view of the above, no dispute award is passed.
Reference case no. 91 of 2015 is disposed of.
Justice K.D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1500.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मेससᭅ दामोदर घाटी िनगम, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 41 OF 2013) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-L42011/80/2013-आईआर(डीयू)
डी.के.िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3315
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 41 OF 2013) 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
Damador Valley Corporation, and The Worker /Union, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L- L42011/80/2013-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 41 OF 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Damador Valley Corporation
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
: Mr. R. Dey,
Advocate
On behalf of the Workmen
: None
Dated 4th January, 2023
AWARD
Management is present through its Counsel. None appears from the side of Union when the matter is called
for hearing. Material on record show notice of appearance sent to the Union after the joining of the present Presiding
Officer was duly served upon it and in spite of receiving the notice of appearance, union has failed to take part in the
further hearing of the case by adducing evidence for which purpose the case was fixed since 11.10.2018.
Therefore, taking into consideration such conduct on the part of the Union, it is assumed it is no more
interested to proceed further with the hearing of the reference case, for adjudication of the dispute “Whether the action
of the management of M/s. Allenmax Contractor as well as Damodar Valley Corporation, Principal Employer are
justified in denying job to 19 no. of Workmen in their establishment is legal and justified? To what relief the
Workmen are entitled.”
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour by invoking the power conferred U/s. 10(I) (D) & (2A) of the I.D.
Act, has referred the above dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal vide order No. L42011/80/2013-IR(DU) dated
01.08.2013.
From the conduct of the Union discussed above it, can be assumed that Union has no grievance against both
the Principal Employer and Contractor Employer and therefore, there is nothing to adjudicate by this Tribunal.
Accordingly, no dispute Award is passed.
Let copy of this Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour for doing needful.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1501.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मैससᭅ तपन मुखजᱮ; मैससᭅ ऑᳶडᭅनᱶस फैᮝी बोडᭅ, रᭃा मंᮢालय, भारत सरकार, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और
कामगार , के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट
(संदभᭅ संया 08 OF 2019) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट
कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-184-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
3316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 08 OF 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
M/s. Tapan Mukherjee; M/s.Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, and The Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42025/07/2023-184-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
Application No. CGIT. 08 OF 2019 [U/S 2A(2) of I.D.Act.]
Sri Goutam Roy.
.. Applicant :
Versus
1. M/s. Tapan Mukherjee
2. M/s. Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence,
Govt.of India.
... Opp. Parties.
Appearance :
On behalf of Workman
: None.
On behalf of the Management
: None
Dated 22nd December, 2022
AWARD
This is an application for claim u/s 2A(2) of I.D.Act., 1947 filed by Sri Goutam Roy, Ichapur Indrapuri near
2nd Transformer, Post Office-Ichapur, Nawabganj, Pin-743 144, District- North 24 Parrgnas against (1). M/s. Tapan
Mukherjee, Civil Contractor and general Order Supplier, Debitala, Post Office- Ichapur, Nawabganj (Near Rajendra
Vidya Mandir), North 24 Parganas, Pin-743 144, West Bengal and (2) Government of India, Ministry of Defence
Ordnance Factory Board, “Ayudh Bhavan”, 10-A, Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001.
Parties are found absent when the matter is called.
Record shows, the notice issued upon the concerned workman Sri Goutam Roy had returned
undelivered with postal endorsement “deceased”. Therefore, this Tribunal has called for an information regarding the
present status of the applicant/workman from his Lawyer on record, but nothing is there in the record to show
compliance of the order dated 01-11-2022 by the office about informing the Ld. Lawyer of the deceased workman.
However, on perusal of the record, I find that one Miss Priya Roy, daughter of Goutam Roy had
appeared before the Tribunal on 25-09-2020 and had filed an application for withdrawal of the present case on the
ground of death of concerned workman Goutam Roy and had also filed a Xerox copy of the death certificate of
Goutam Roy and which shows the concerned workman had died on 01-09-2019 at Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
Miss. Priya Roy to prove that she is the daughter of deceased Goutam Roy had filed a Xerox copy of her
Aadhar Card but I do not find any mentioned about such fact in the order sheet dated 25-09-2020. Since the workman
had died and his daughter Miss. Priya Roy by filing a verified petition has prayed for withdrawal of the present case
and as such tghe application dated 25-09-2020 is allowed in view of the fact that the concerned workman is no more
alive and his legal heir is also not interested to proceed with the present case u/s 2A(2) of the I.D. Act.
Therefore, CGIT-08/2019 u/s 2A(2) of the I.D.Act , 1947 is hereby disposed of being withdrawn. This is my
award.
Send a copy of this award to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3317
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1502.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
वᳯर᳧ डाकघर अधीᭃक, दिᭃण कोलकाता िडवीजन, कोलकाता, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार, के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 40 OF
2013) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -40012/46/2013-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 40 OF 2013) 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
The Sr. Supdt of Post Offices, South Kolkata Division, Kolkata, and The Worker, which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-40012/46/2013-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 40 OF 2013
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Department of Post
AND
It’s Workman
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management : Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, Advocate
On behalf of the Workman
: Mr. Pradip Paul, Advocate.
Dated: 24th July, 2023
AWARD
By order No. L-40012/46/2013-IR (DU) dated 25-07-2013, Central Govt., Ministry of Labour in exercise of
power conferred under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following issue
for determination by this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Postal Authority i.e. Sr. Supdt of Post Offices, South Kolkata
Division, Kolkata-29 in terminating the service of Sri Raj Kumar Karmakar, Daily rated postman in the garb of
retrenchment w.e.f. 1.1.2012 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
The facts giving rise to the present reference in brief are that Sri Raj Kumar Karmakar was engaged by Post
Master of Thakurpukur Post Office, Kolkata as a daily rated Postman in the month of September, 2010. He was paid
wages regularly by the Post Master. That all on a sudden he was prevented from working as a daily rated Postman on
and from 31-12-2011. The postal authority in answer to his queries made under RTI Act, has admitted that he worked
as daily rated Majdoor at Thakurpukur Post Office, Kolkata from September, 2010 to 31-12-2011, without any
interruption except on normal holidays. That he was paid wages under ACG-17.
3318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
He has further alleged that he was made to work as a Postal Peon against a permanent post. He worked for
more than 240 days without any break in a calendar year. His service was terminated without complying the
provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. Thus he has prayed for his reinstatement in the same post
with back wages.
The Postal authorities in their joint reply have alleged that Postal Department is not an industry. The
concerned workman was to work as a daily rated Majdoor against occasional vacancy of Postman in different beats
during the period from 10-09-2010 to 31-12-2011. He was engaged to do occasion interim nature of works. That he
cannot claim appointment or absorption against a permanent post on the mere allegation that he was retrenched as a
daily rated workman. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the claim of the workman and reference.
The workman has examined himself as W.W. No.1. The workman produced 8 (eight) documents which have
been marked as Exhibit- W/1 to W/8 on formal proof being dispensed with on 02-03-2016.
The management has examined Sri Mriganka Kumar Maity, Assistant Superintendent of Post as M.W. No.1.
Photocopy of relevant page of Attendance Register has been marked as Exhibit-M/1 on formal proof being dispensed
with on 02-03-2016.
Since the management has alleged that Department of Post is not an industry whereas the Ld. Counsel for the
workman alleged that Department of Post is an industry. Therefore, first let this tribunal decide whether the
Department of Post is an Industry or not?
Whether Department of Posts and Telegraphs is an industry has come up for consideration before The
Hon’ble High Court at Kerala in the Director of Post, Postal Service vs- K.R.B. Kaimal & Anrs., reported in (1984)
ILLJ 484 Ker delivered on 22-12-1983 and has been pleased to hold that a temporary clerk employed in the Post and
Telegraph Deptt. and who are subjected to Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, are not “workman” as defined in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and as such
the dispute raised by temporary clerks under section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 claiming monitory benefits on their
alleged illegal termination is not maintainable.
Further, in the above judgement the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to mention about order/ judgement
passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of the same High Court in Bhaskaran –vs- Sub Divisional Officer in (1982)-I LLJ
248 delivered on 28-07-1982 and observed “the question raised in this writ appeal and the point decided did not arise
for consideration in that case. We shall guard ourselves by stating that we have considered only the impact of special
rules, the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on the Industrial Dispute Act and nothing further”.
The Hon’ble Three Bench Judge have observed the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed appeal and dismissed the original
petition in view of the circumstances of the said case.
Therefore, let’s see what were the facts and circumstances of the case decided by the Hon’ble Single Bench
of the same High Court in Bhaskaran –vs- Sub Divisional Officer in 1982 II KLT-248, delivered on 28-07-1982,
holding Postal Department to be an industry. Hon’ble Single Bench has been pleased to hold that the Post &
Telegraph Deptt. to be an industry as the Act itself give an emphatic answer in the affirmative. The section 22(1) of
the I.D. Act provides that persons employed in public utility services shall not go on strike without giving notice to the
employer. Section 22 (2) provides that employers of public utility service shall not also declare a lock-out without
notice. Section 12(1) of the I.D. Act, imposes an obligation on the conciliation officer to hold conciliation proceeding
where the industry involved is a public utility service and a notice under section 22 is given. It is also the duty of the
appropriate government to make reference under section 10(1), in such circumstances, unless it considers notice to be
frivolous or vexatious. The Act makes a distinction between industries which are: public utility services and industries
which are not; in the case of former, conciliation is obligatory and is so reference, subject to the exception noted; in
the case of latter, conciliation and reference; are both discretionary. Having thus placed public utility services or a
special footing it is only natural that the Act attempts to define “public utility service” in section 2(n).
The Hon’ble Single Judge has been pleased to hold since section 2(n) of the I.D. Act, includes any postal,
telegraph or telephone service as public utility services to which the provision of section 10, 12 and 22 of the I.D. Act,
directly apply and therefore it is an industry. The P&T Deptt. cannot declare a lock-out without notice; employees of
Deptt. cannot also go on strike without notice.
The Hon’ble Single Judge has been pleased to refer to the decision passed in D.N. Banerji –vs- P.R. Mukerji,
1953-I LLJ 195 and where Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed though a layman could not think in terms of an
industry when the rights and duties connected with the functioning of a Government or its Secretariat were involved,
there was nothing to prevent a statute from giving the word “industry” a wider and more comprehensive import in
order to make the requirements of rapid industrial progress. The purpose of the Act was to resolve dispute between
capital and labour in the interest of industrial peace.
Further, the Hon’ble Single Judge has been pleased to discuss State of Bombay –vs- Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha, 1960 –I LLJ 251, Corporation of City of Nagpur- vs- its Employees, 1961-I LLJ 523, National Union of
Commercial Employees-vs- Maher 1962-I LLJ 241, University of Delhi vs Ram Nath, 1963-2 LLJ 335, Madras
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3319
Gymkhana Case, 1967 II LLJ 720, Cricket Club of India , 1969-I LLJ 227 Safdarjung Hospital 1970, II LLJ 266 and
Bangalore Sewerage Case.
The Hon’ble Single Judge has been pleased to take note of following relevant findings of Hon’ble Justice
Krishna Iyer in Bangalore Sewerage Case as follows :-
(i) the term 'industry' is of wide import. All systematic activity, organized with the co-operation of employers and
employees, for the production and distribution of goods and services, will be 'industry'. Absence of profit motive is
irrelevant in public and private ventures alike. The test is functional, and motives like charity and philanthropy are
irrelevant:
(ii) the ideology of the Act is industrial peace, and the sweep of the definition cannot be cut down in the case of
professions, clubs, educational institutions, charitable projects and kindred adventures;
(iii) where mixed activities are involved, the predominant nature of the activity, as explained in Nagpore Corporation
case must prevail;
(iv) only sovereign functions of the State, strictly understood, can qualify for exemption; other governmental activities
are covered by the Act, if the functional test is satisfied;
(v) even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are severable and which are engaged
in industrial activities, Section 2 [j] of the Act can be attracted;
(vi) constitutional and enacted legislative provisions can remove from the scope of the Act activities which are
otherwise industrial; and
(vii) Safdarjung and Gymkhana case were wrongly decided; Hospital Mazdoor Sabha had made the right approach.
Further, pleased to quote the observation of Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer, , in paragraph (46) of the said
decision referring to the Nagpore Corporation 1978-I L.L.J. 379: the Court proceeded to carve out the negative factors
which, notwithstanding the literal width of the language of the definition, must, for other compelling reasons, be kept
out of the scope of industry. For instance, sovereign functions of the State cannot be included although what such
functions are has been aptly termed 'the primary and inalienable functions of a constitutional government'. Even here
we may point out the ineptitude of relying on the doctrine of regal powers. That has reference, in this context, to the
Crown's liability in tort and has nothing to do with Industrial Law. In any case, it is open to Parliament to make law
which governs the State's relations with its employees. Articles 309 to 311 of the Constitution of India, the enactments
dealing with the Defence Forces and other legislation dealing with employment under statutory bodies may, expressly
or by necessary implication, exclude the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That is a question of
interpretation and statutory exclusion; but, in the absence of such provision of law, it may indubitably be assumed that
the key aspects of public administration like public justice stand out of the circle of industry. Even here, as has been
brought out from the excerpts of ILO documents, it is not every employee who his excluded but only certain
categories primarily engaged and supportively employed in the discharge of the essential functions of constitutional
Government. In a limited way, this head of exclusion has been recognised throughout.
The modern State is not a simple mechanism to safeguard the country from external aggressions and internal
disturbances; it is against performing multifarious functions. It builds dams, construct railways, operates buses, flies
planes, digs canals, generates electricity, distributes essential articles, carries letters establishes schools, colleges, ports
and poor homes. It is active in the field of mining, banking, insurance, shipping and fishing. It sets up factories and
workshops, markets and fairs, gas and gas work, hotels and hospitals, libraries and museums. Under Article 19(6) of
the Constitution, it can carry on any trade, business, industry or service to the exclusion of others. The Directive
Principles in Part IV require it to secure work for all by "economic organisation", to provide for free and compulsory
education, and to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines. The Central and State Governments,
together with corporations controlled by them, employ the largest number of workers in the country. When these
workers start agitating for better service conditions, the Industrial Disputes Act pro-provides for settlement of the
resultant disputes through the peaceful process of conciliation or adjudication, so that the factories, fields and offices
are spared of pitched battles and the flexing of muscles. The machinery provided by the Act is a safety valve to avoid
explosions, and ensure the supply of goods and services even during movements of acute differences or disputes. If
the State thinks that the safety valve has to be removed, let it do so directly, on its own responsibility, by suitable
legislative measures, instead of inviting the Courts to misconstrue the statute by reading into it personal predilections
and individual philosophies.
Therefore, observed one of the exceptions carved out by the Court is in favour of activities undertaken by the
Government in the exercise of its inalienable functions under the Constitution, call it regal, sovereign or by any other
name. That one must have regard to the nature of the activity and not to who engages in it. In fact, to concede the
benefit of an exception to the State's activities which are in the nature of sovereign functions is really to have regard
not so much to the nature of the activity as to the consideration who engages in that activity; for, sovereign functions
can only be discharged by the State and not by a private person. If the State's inalienable functions are excepted from
3320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the sweep of the definition contained in Section 2(j), one shall have, unwittingly rejected the fundamental test that it is
the nature of the activity which ought to determine whether the activity is an industry. Indeed, in this respect, it should
make no difference whether; on the one hand, an activity is undertaken by a corporate body in the discharge of its
statutory functions or, on the other, by the State itself in the exercise of its inalienable functions. The essence of the
matter is that if you are able to infer from the definition clause, read along with the other provisions of the Act, that
every organised activity carried on with the co-operation of employers and employees for production of goods or for
rendering services is an industry, you have to apply that yardstick to governmental activities also, unless any
exemption is recognised by the Act itself or other laws. To cut down the concept by carving out exceptions in favour
of certain activities, whether governmental, charitable, self-serving or philanthropic, would be to undermine the very
concept you have painstakingly evolved. And even that can be done only if Courts can trespass into the field of
policy. Section 2(s) of the Act lays down that every person employed in an industry to do skilled, unskilled, manual
supervisory, technical or clerical work is a "workman", subject to the exceptions specified. The generality of postal
employees do not come within these exceptions; the mazdoors, the telephone operators, the telegraphists, technicians,
clerks and supervisors of the department are workmen. If they are workmen, how do they cease to be so because
service rules are also there to govern some of their service conditions? Employees exempted from Section 2(s) include
policemen, prison officers and personnel subject to the Army Act, the Air Force Act and the Navy (Discipline) Act.
These exempted employees, it is well-known, are also governed by service rules. Parliament did not think that the
applicability of service rules alone would be sufficient to place them outside the definition clause; that is why it sought
to exclude policemen, prison officers and some categories of defence personnel, by specific exemptions. Is not the
implication clear that other Government servants are covered by the definition, despite applicability of service rules, if
they are employed to do unskilled, skilled and clerical work in an industry?
Sections 2(a), 2(g), 2(n), 2(s) 9-A. 10 and 22, the proviso to Section 17A, and the entries in the First
Schedule are all indications that the provisions of the Act will apply to governmental activities, if such activities are of
the nature referred to in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and the Sewerage cases. The Posts and Telegraphs Department
is, therefore, an industry. The petitioners who are casual mazdoors are unskilled workers engaged in such an industry.
I, therefore, declare that their services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-
F of the Act. and orders of termination orally passed without regard to the said provisions, shall have no effect.
In view of the above two decisions of the Hon’ble High Court at Kerala, it appears, an employee who is
governed by the service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not a workman as defined in
section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and to whom no Industrial Dispute Act applies. On the other hand, a casual majdoors of
the Post & Telegraph Deptt. who are not governed by service rules are workman as defined in section 2(s) of the I.D.
Act as Post & Telegraph Dept. being a public utility service governed by section 10, 12 and 22 of the I.D. Act.
In the present case the concerned workman during his cross examination by the counsel for the authority of
Postal Deptt. and recorded before the Tribunal on 18-09-2019 has admitted that he was working at Thakurpukur Post
Office as a daily rated majdoor and he was not given any appointment letter. He in his statement of claim has alleged
that he worked without any break as a daily rated workman at Thakurpukur Post Office from the month of September,
2010 till 31-12-2011. He has also stated that such fact has been admitted by the Central Assistant Public Information
Officer, West Bengal circle, office of the Sr. Post Master, Alipur in his reply under Right of Information Act. Exhibit-
7 appears to be the reply by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, South Kolkata Division, Kolkata-29 to the queries
made by the concerned workman under RTI Act., but Exhiit-7 does not disclose that concerned workman joined
Thakurpukur Post Office as a casual workman in the month of September, 2010 as alleged but it discloses that he last
worked on 31-12-2011.
Be that as it may, the Postal authorities in their joint written statement and in paragraph 3 (a) has admitted
that Sri Raj Kumar Karmakar used to work as daily rated at Thakurpukur Post Office against occasional vacancy of
Postman in different beats during the period from 10-09-2010 to 31-12-2011. Such admitted fact stands corroborated
by Exhibit-M/1, copy of Attendance Register, produced by the management and which shows that Sri Raj Kumar
Karmakar joined Thakurpukur Post Office on 10-09-2010. The Attendance Register from the month of October, 2010
to December, 2011 show that Sri Raj Kumar Karmakar regularly attended his duty from 10-09-2010 to 31-10-2011,
and which prima facie prove that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the authority of Postal
Deptt. has for reasons best known to them appears to have suppressed in furnishing reply to the queries no.2 made by
the workman under RTI Act. (Exhibit-6).
Since the concerned workman being a daily rated worker engaged to do the job of a Postman by the
Postmaster of Thakurpukur Post Office and not governed by Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution and not being a regular/permanent employee of Postal Deptt., but he having worked for more than 240
days for the period from 10-09-2010 to 31-10-2011, he should not be remediless. Therefore, in view of decision
passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of Kerala High Court in Bhaskaran –vs- Sub Divisional Officer in (1982)-I LLJ
248, the service of the present workman cannot be terminated orally except in accordance with the provisions of
section 25-F of the Act.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3321
However, the concerned workman who was engaged as a casual workman in a Central Govt. Postal Deptt.,
cannot seek regularization or absorption against a sanctioned post, if any, lying vacant without undergoing selection
process as per recruitment rules to which Postal Deptt. is governed or recruitment process it is required to follow,
merely because his termination has been held not in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act.
Therefore, he is not entitled to get reinstatement with back wages.
In view of the above discussion, the authorities of Postal Department are directed to make necessary payment
in accordance with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, within three months from the date hereof. Accordingly,
Reference No. 40 of 2013 is disposed of with the above findings and award is passed to that effect.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1503.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
कᱶᮤीय सांियकᳱ कायाᭅलय, कोलकाता महािनदेशक, कᱶᮤीय सांियकᳱ कायाᭅलय,, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और
᮰ी रतन न᭭कर, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-
कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 01 OF 2013) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2023-183-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 01 OF 2013) 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
Central Statistics Office, kolkata The Director General, Central Statistics Office, and Shri Ratan Naskar,
Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-183-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
Application No. CGIT. 01 OF 2013 [U/S 2A(2) of I.D. Act.]
Parties: Sri Ratan Naskar, 3/H/17, Tarini Charan
Ghosh Lane, Kolkata-700 002.
...Applicant
-Vs-
1.
Central Statistics Office.
2.
Director General, Central Statistics Office.
...Opp. Parties
Appearance :
On behalf of Workman : Applicant
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. Joy Sarkar, Adv.
3322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated 6th March, 2023
AWARD
Record is put up today for passing necessary order / award.
Persued the record and where from it appears the present case was dismissed with the finding the Central
Statistics Office is not an industry and the application U/s. 2A of the I.D. Act, of the Applicant Ratan Naskar was
dismissed by an award dated 10.10.2018.
Such award was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P. No. 12187 of 2019, whereby
the Award as set aside and directed the Tribunal to examine the issue a merits once again relying upon the earlier
definition of “Industry” as this Tribunal has passed the award relying on the new definition of “Industry” which has
not been brought into force for last 23 years.
Thus, once again the present case U/s. 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is taken up for adjudication of
the issue “Whether Central Statistics Office, under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme is an industry as defined
in Sec.2(J) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?”.
Before adjudication of the above issue, let me briefly discuss the facts of the case.
Applicant Ratan Naskar has filed an application U/s. 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947, claiming that his termination
is unjustified and reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the law.
It is his claim that he was engaged as a Mazdoor in the office of Central Statistics Office, Kolkata on
01.06.1999. He used to discharge the function of a Peon, through his name was not incorporated in the permanent
muster roll of Peon. He discharged his duty diligently till his service was terminated on 01.10.2012, without following
the statutory procedure as provided in Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. Thus present reference.
The Central Statistics Office, has contracted such case and claim of the applicant by filing written statement
and where it has categorically challenged the maintainability on the ground that it is not an industry but a regular
Central Govt. Office discharging its sovereign function.
The Applicant was appointed as a mazdoor (unskilled labour) purely for doing occasional nature of work on
daily basis. Payment was made to him on the basis of claim voucher submitted by the Applicant. He not being a
permanent staff he can not claim reinstatement with back wages. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal of the
Application U/s. 2A of the I.D. Act.
Record shows the Applicant has examined himself as W.W. No. 1 and was cross-examined by the
Management / Employer and where he has admitted that no wages was paid to him the day he remained absent. He
used to perform not a regular type of work but some odd jobs.
That as many as nine documents have been produced from the side of workman and which have been marked
as Exhibits W-1 to W-9 on formal proof being dispensed with.
On the other hand no evidence either oral or documentary have been adduced from the side of the Employer /
Management. Documents filed by the Applicant show that he is only class VII pass as per his employment exchange
card. That his name was sponsored by Sub-Regional Employment Exchange for doing misc. type of manual labour
such as fetching water from outsides the building and distribution of water to different units and to move the heavy
weight machines, furniture etc. at C.S.O. (I.S. Wing) at daily fixed wage of Rs.71.81 paise w.e.f. 01.06.1999.
That in the year 2003 he had applied for the post of Peon on contractual basis and was issued an interview
letter. The office order of the Management / Employer dated 05.11.2009 shows that Ratan Naskar applicant and Md.
Jabir Hossain another applicant of CGIT-02/2013 were paid wages along with other six as mazdoor and way side
Safaiwala engaged in the month of October, 2009. It further shows that this applicant had worked for 19 days and Md.
Jabir Hossain, the other applicant of another similar case 02/2003 for 22 days.
From such letter it can be informed that the present Applicant Ratan Naskar had disqualified in an interview
for Peon on contractual basis.
It is a matter of common knowledge, candidate for the post of group ‘D’ Peon should have a minimum
qualification of class VIII and should be able to produce a pass certificate of the same for considered for selection.
In the present case the Applicant is only class VII passed as per his employment exchange card. Ext-2.
Therefore, he is not qualified to be engaged as a Peon as claimed by him and question of his regularization or
absorption in a regular post does not arise even if he has worked for the establishment for more than ten years.
Further Ext-5 and Ext-7 shows that he used to work for few days in a month.
Be that as it may, let me decided this issue in question. It is true that there has been amendment in the
definition of “Industry” by the Act 46 of 1982 in view of the landmark judgement passed in Bangalore Water Supply
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3323
and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Other, reported in 1978-I-LLJ-349, unfortunately till date the Govt. Has not
notified such amendment and till date the unamended definition of “Industry” prevails and which read “Industry”
means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacturing , calling of employee and includes any calling service,
employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workman”.
However, the Courts / Tribunal while interpreting the term “industry” has evolved that profit motive or
money consideration for the service rendered is not essential character. The regal and sovereign function of the State
are kept outside the scope of Industry, but other functions of the Govt. which are not of regal character held to be an
industry.
In Bangalore Water Supply (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold even departments
of the Govt. discharging sovereign function will be an industry provided there is any unit where systematic activity is
carried on by co-operation between an employer and his employee for production or distribution or supply of goods or
services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes not being religious or spiritual in nature. Systemotic activity
should be done with the motive of projects or certain financial gains. Ststemotic activity should be resulting out of co-
operation between the employer and employee. If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one
because of philanthropy animating the undertaking.
The Bangalore Water Supply (Supra) gave a very wide interpretation of the term “Industry” and till date the
landmark judgement stands.
Keeping in view the Principle laid down in Bangalore Water Supply Case (Supra), let me see whether
Central Statistics Office discharge purely Sovereign function or where systematic activity is carried on by co-
operation of both the establishment and its employee for production and supply of goods or services with a vies to
satisfy human wants and wishes.
The term “Statistic” connotes science of collecting analyzing, presenting, organizing data and interpreting
data. The data collected can used to predict the futire, determine the probability and make decision based on data.
As per web-site of Central Statistics Office (India) it is a government agency in India and the Ministry of
Statistics Programme Implementation responsible for co-ordination of Statistical activities in India, evolving and
maintaining statistical standard. Its activities include National Income Accounting, Conduct of annual survey of
Industires, Economic Censuses and its follows up surveys, compilation of index of Industrial Production as well as
Consumer Price Indices for Urban Non-manual employees, Human Development Statistics, Gender Statistics,
importing training in official statistics, five year plan work relating to Development of statistics in the state and Union
Territories, dissemination of statistical information, work relating to trade, energy, construction and environmental
statistics, revision of National Industrial classification etc. It plays an advisory role in statistical matters. It provides
National statistics to United Nation. It has set up a unit to attend to statistical work relating to the five year plans in
collaboration with the planning commission. Provide training facilities for statistical personnel. It is also responsible
for the compilation and publication of National Income statistics. Through its Industrial statistical wing conducts, the
Annual survey of Industries and publishes the result.
Further, it provides quantitative and qualitative information on all major areas of citizens live such as
economic and social development, living conditions, health, education and the environment. It supplies decision
makers and other users including the general public and the research community with a continuing flow of
information to help user develop their knowledge about a particular topic or geographical area, make comparison
between countries or understand changes over-time make information an economic and social development accessible
to the public allowing the impact of Govt. Policies to be assessed thus improving accountability. It collects data from
different Govt. organization, Non-Govt. organization and agency and also from international agency and organization.
Thus, activity and function that is discharged by Central Statistics Office Kolkata can not be called business,
trade, undertaking, manufacturer or industrial occupation or economic venture or commercial enterprise to satisfy the
need of the consumer community. The data collected by it from different Govt. or Non Govt. Organization and agency
can not be said to be due to the systematic activity carried on by co-operation by its employee. It does compilation of
data collected from different sources and disseminate the statistical information through periodical publication.
That apart the Applicant has failed to prove by adducing both oral and documentary that it carries out
systematic activity by co-operation of its employees for production and distribution or supply goods and service with a
view to satisfy human wants or wishes.
In view of above, it is established that the activity of Central Statistics Office is sovereign function of the
Govt. which is specifically excluded from the definition of terms “Industry”. Consequently, the Applicant can not
claim to be a workman within the difination of Sec. 2(a) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and thereby no industrial dispute can be
said to have arisen.
Accordingly, the application U/s. 2A of the I.D. Act, is hereby dismissed and Award is passed to that
effect.CGIT-01 of 2013 is dismissed.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
3324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1504.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मैससᭅ ᳯरलायबल हॉि᭭पटैिलटी सᳶवᭅसेज एवं अ᭠य, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और कामगार/संघ, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ
िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 37 OF 2015) को
जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को
ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-41011/34/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 37 OF 2015) 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
M/s Reliable Hospitality Services & Other, and The Worker/ Union, which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-41011/34/2015 - IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 37 OF 2015
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s Reliable Hospitality Services & Other
AND
Their Workmen/ Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Management: Reliable Hospitality
Services: Ld. Adv. Mr. D. Sengupta
& Tapan Sinha Memorial
Hospital, Metro Rly.
: None
On behalf of the Workmen: Railway Contractors
Labour Union (WB) : Absent.
Dated 15th March, 2023
AWARD
The Authorized Representative of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Tapan Sinha Memorial Hospital Metro
Railway is present along with letter of Authority. Let it be taken on record.
Notice sent through speed post to the Railway Contractor Labour Union, which has raised the present dispute
has failed to appear inspite of due service of notice upon it as per track report.
The Contractor Employer too fails to appear. Record shows it was pursuing the matter through its Ld.
Counsel Shri Debasis Sengupta.
Record further shows the Union had failed to put appearance and contest the dispute even after due service of
notice upon it in the year 2018.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3325
Therefore, it can be assumed the Union which has espoused the dispute is not at all interested to conduct the
proceeding for reason best known to it.
Be that as it may the Ministry of Labour vide its Office Order No. L-41011/34/2015 dated 18.06.15 has
referred the following issue to this tribunal for adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Reliable Hospital Service, Kolkata, a contractor of Tapan
Sinha Memorial Hospital being run by Metro Railway authority in denying the redeployment of existing 6 nos. of
workmen namely Sh. Parkash Yadab, Sh. Sitaram Yadab, Sh. Mukesh Kr. Yadab, all working as drivers, Sh. Samiran
Ghosh, Sh. Bapi Dey, Sh. Nandan Sengupta, all working as helpers under new contract agreement for providing
ambulance service duly issued by Metro Railway authority is legal, just and fair. Whether the role taken by the
authority of Metro Railway, Kolkata in protecting the interest/ job security of contractual workmen is proper, justified.
If not, what relief the present set of workmen numbering six is entitled to?”
The Union is not pursuing the dispute since the day the same has been referred to this Tribunal.
Therefore, no dispute award is passed and Reference Case No. 37/15 is disposed of.
Send copy of the Award to the Ministry for doing needful.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 14 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1505.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
भारतीय अंतदᱷशीय जलमागᭅ ᮧािधकरण, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- कोलकाता पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 02 OF 2013) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ
ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 14.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/134/2012-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 14th September, 2023
S.O. 1505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 02 OF 2013) 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
Inland Waterways Authority of India, and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by
the Central Government on 14.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/134/2012-IR(DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.02 OF 2013
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Inland Waterways Authority of India
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of Management
:
Mrs. R. Majumder,
Advocate
On behalf of the Workmen
:
None
3326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated 4th January, 2023
AWARD
Management is present through its Counsel. None appears from the side of Union when the matter is called.
Notice of appearance sent to the Union through speed post is not yet returned or no acknowledgement card
received. But, track report shows that attempt was made to serve upon the addressee on 30.11.2022 as addressee could
not be located.
An attempt was made to serve the same on next date i.e. on 01.12.2022, but the door of the addressee having
found locked the item was kept on hold.
Then the item was returned unclaimed on 10.12.2022.
Later the office placed the undelivered envelop addressed to the Union.
The law is settled “unclaimed” is a good service. since the union has refrained itself for appearing before the
Tribunal and conduct the hearing of the reference case it can be presumed that it is no more interested to proceed
further with the present reference case perhaps in view of order dated 02.03.2020. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to
dispose of the present case in view of Rule 22 of I.D. Rule, 1957.
By order No. L-42011/134/2012-IR(DU) dated 14.12.2012, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of its power u/s 10(1)(d) & (2A) of the I.D. Act, 1947 refereed the following dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.
“Whether the action of the management of Inland Waterways Authority of India in terminating the service of
two workmen namely Mr. Moidul Islam (DCO) and Mr. Goutam Tunga (1st Class Driver) w. e. f. 19.10.2011 is legal
and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?
The Union after appearance has filed statement of claim and the Management too has filed its W/S, but both
union of Management appear to have pleaded and defended case in respect of some other issues having no connection
to the dispute as referred by the Govt.
Schedule of Reference as reproduced above prima facie show it relates to termination of two employee, but
statement of claim deals with a cause relating to 63 contingent workers working in different vessels of I.W.A.I.
Similarly, the management too by overlooking the schedule of reference has filed written statement
concerning 63 contingent workers working for it in different vessels.
The union has filed evidence on affidavit of one Debasish Maity, who too has stated the case of contingent
workers working for the management and how illegally Management has deprived them as their entitlement.
Therefore, the statement of claim filed by Union, evidence of its witness on affidavit and the written
statement filed by the management have nothing to do with the dispute under reference and as such they are not taken
into consideration.
Since there is no statement of claim or written statement of the management in the eye of law, the Tribunal
hold the Union has no grievance at present in respect of the issue under reference. Therefore, there exist no dispute
adjudication.
Accordingly, the Reference No. 02 of 2013 is disposed of. Award is passed accordingly.
Let the copy of Award be sent to the Ministry for doing needful.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1506.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
केनरा बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (a12/2022) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023आईआर(बी-II)-40]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3327
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023 - IR(B-II)-40]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT &EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
ID No. 12/2022
Present:
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16.05.2023
Shri J. Ramprasath
S/o Jayaraman
No. 1/155, Vadapazhanji Road
Palkalai Nagar
Madurai-625001
:
First Party Petitioner
AND
1. The Chief Manager - HR
Canara Bank
No. 112, J.C. Road
Bengaluru-560002
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
2. The Chief General Manager – HR
Canara Bank, Circle Office
Teynampet
Chennai-600018
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
3. The Regional Manager
Canara Bank, Regional Office
No. 145, Claret Plaza
Melakal Main Road, Kochadai
Madurai-625016
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
4. The Regional Manager
Canara Bank, Regional Office
No. 99, Bouleward Road
Tiruchirappalli-620008
:
2nd Party/4th Respondent
Appearance:
For the Petitioner
:
Advocate, M/s K.M. Ramesh
For the 1st/2nd/3rd & 4th Respondents
:
Advocates, M/s T.R. Sathiyamohan &
Associates
3328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Applicant challenges the order of
Respondent .dismissing him from job. The applicant sought for his reinstatement with continuity of service, back
wages and all other attendant and consequential benefits.
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is registered as
ID No. 10/2022. Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 26.04.2022. None on
behalf of the First Party Petitioner appeared resulting further to 14.06.2022. On that day, both parties entered
appearance. The case was posted for Counter Statement to 01.08.2022. On that day, the Counsel for the Respondent
filed Counter Statement on behalf of all the Respondents. Accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to file Affidavit-
Evidence on 15.09.2022. The Petitioner failed to file Affidavit-Evidence and documents resulting four adjournments
till 29.03.2023. The Appellant did not turn up to file the Affidavit-Evidence. The Counsel for the Respondent who
was very much present submitted to dispose of the case for default of the Petitioner. However, for the interest of
justice the Petitioner was once again afforded with almost two months’ time to file Affidavit-Evidence and
documents, if any listing the case to 15.05.2023.
5.
On repeated calls the Petitioner did not turn up nor filed any Petition seeking extension of time. No Affidavit-
Evidence or documents were furnished in any manner. At this juncture, the Counsel for the Respondent submits not to
re-schedule the case to any other date but to dispose of the same in accordance to Rule-22 of the Industrial Dispute
(Central) Rules, 1957. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent since has got sufficient force for
consideration, it is felt not to re-list the case to any other date for the same purpose but to dispose of the case in
accordance with Law. Hence the case is reserved for final order.
5.
In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner even though was
afforded with sufficient opportunities fail to file any Affidavit-Evidence. The Petitioner thereby found to have
withheld himself to come to the dock to prove his case on the other hand simply dragged the case for more than a year
from the date of registration without any fruitful result. The very conduct of the Petitioner amply proves that he has no
interest to proceed with the case. The non-cooperation of the Petitioner simply caused enormous wastage of valuable
time of the Tribunal. Thus, it is felt to dispose of the case as liable for dismissal
6.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication as per
the 2A(2) Application. In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioner.
The ID case stands dismissed for default.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1507.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj केनरा
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (a10/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-II)-39]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.10/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023 - IR(B-II)-39]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3329
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
ID No. 10/2022
Present:
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16.05.2023
Shri N. Nagarajan
S/o P. Natarajan
No. 1, Ansari Street, 1st Street
Mappalayam
Madurai-625016
:
First Party Petitioner
AND
1. The Chief Manager - HR
Canara Bank
No. 112, J.C. Road
Bengaluru-560002
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
2. The Chief General Manager – HR
Canara Bank, Circle Office
Teynampet
Chennai-600018
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
3. The Regional Manager
Canara Bank, Regional Office
No. 145, Claret Plaza
Melakal Main Road, Kochadai
Madurai-625016
:
2nd Party/3rd Respondent
Appearance:
For the Petitioner
:
Advocate, M/s K.M. Ramesh
For the 1st/2nd/3rd Respondents
:
Advocates, M/s T.R. Sathiyamohan &
Associates
AWARD
This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Applicant challenges the order of
Respondent .dismissing him from job. The applicant sought for his reinstatement with continuity of service, back
wages and all other attendant and consequential benefits.
2.
On receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the dispute on reference is registered as
ID No. 10/2022. Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 26.04.2022. None on
behalf of the First Party Petitioner appeared resulting further to 14.06.2022. On that day, both parties entered
appearance. The case was posted for Counter Statement to 01.08.2022. On that day, the Counsel for the Respondent
filed Counter Statement on behalf of all the Respondents. Accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to file Affidavit-
Evidence on 05.09.2022. The Petitioner failed to file Affidavit-Evidence and documents resulting four adjournments
till 29.03.2023. The Appellant did not turn up to file the Affidavit-Evidence. The Counsel for the Respondent who was
very much present submitted to dispose of the case for default of the Petitioner. However, for the interest of justice the
Petitioner was once again afforded with almost two months’ time to file Affidavit-Evidence and documents, if any
listing the case to 15.05.2023.
3330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
On repeated calls the Petitioner did not turn up nor filed any Petition seeking extension of time. No Affidavit-
Evidence or documents were furnished in any manner. At this juncture, the Counsel for the Respondent submits not to
re-schedule the case to any other date but to dispose of the same in accordance to Rule-22 of the Industrial Dispute
(Central) Rules, 1957. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent since has got sufficient force for
consideration, it is felt not to re-list the case to any other date for the same purpose but to dispose of the case in
accordance with Law. Hence the case is reserved for final order.
5.
In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner even though was
afforded with sufficient opportunities fail to file any Affidavit-Evidence. The Petitioner thereby found to have
withheld himself to come to the dock to prove his case on the other hand simply dragged the case for more than a year
from the date of registration without any fruitful result. The very conduct of the Petitioner amply proves that he has no
interest to proceed with the case. The non-cooperation of the Petitioner simply caused enormous wastage of valuable
time of the Tribunal. Thus, it is felt to dispose of the case as liable for dismissal
6.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, it deems there exists no dispute for adjudication as per
the 2A(2) Application. In the result the reference is answered against the Petitioner.
The ID case stands dismissed for default.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1508.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
इंिडयन ओवरसीज बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (a14/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-II)-20]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1508—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B.II)-20]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
ID No. 14/2020
Present:
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 08.05.2023
Sri M. Balasubramaniam
S/o Muthukalai
No. 6, Manickavasagam Street
Ramkrishna Raji Nagar
Sadasiva Nagar, Madipakkam
Chennai
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager-HR
Indian Overseas Bank
P.B. No. 3765, Central Office
No. 762, Anna Salai
Chennai-600002
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Advocate, M/s K.M. Ramesh
For the 1st Party/Respondent
:
Advocate, Sri N. Somasundaar
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3331
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. M.No. 7/1/2020–A1 dtd.
20.02.2020 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai in imposing the punishment of
dismissal from service on Sri M. Balasubramanian is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference the case was registered as ID 14/2020 and due notices were issued to the parties for
appearance on 01.04.2020. No progress was made in the proceeding till 28.09.2021 intervening 9 adjournments. None
appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. However, taking into consideration of the hard situation of Pandemic COVID-19,
no drastic step was taken in the case but the Petitioner was afforded with some more opportunities no sooner normalcy
prevailed. The Petitioner was directed to file Claim Statement. The case was adjourned to 4 more dates till
03.03.2022. None appeared resulting adjournment to 25.04.2022. On that day, the Counsel for the Petitioner was
present and highlighted about the registration of a 2A Application of the Petitioner in ID 12/2020. Thus, the case was
accordingly listed to some other date for passing of appropriate order in this regard. On 06.06.2022 after verification
of both the records, it is found that the Petitioner approached this Forum on an earlier occasion with his 2A(2)
Application was registered. In order to duplication of the case, the earlier ID 12/2020 while stood dismissed on the
point of maintainability, due order was passed to club up the said case with the instant ID 14/2020. The 2A(2)
Application was treated as the Claim Statement and the Petitioner was directed to serve a copy to the Respondent and
also to file further documents, if any. Thus, the case in hand was listed to 12.07.2022, 04.08.2022, 27.9.2022 and
01.11.2022 directing the Petitioner to serve the copy of the Claim Statement to the Respondent. No proof of service
was filed by the Petitioner till 01.11.2022. The case was listed to 26.12.2022, 02.02.2023 and then to 27.03.2023. The
Petitioner did not appear not furnished Proof of Service to the Respondent. No Time Petition was filed. The Counsel
for the Respondent found to have appeared in this case even after the clubbing up the ID 12/2020 with 14/2020 vide
the Tribunal’s Order dtd. 06.06.2022.
3.
It reveals that despite of several opportunities, though were made available to the Petitioner to serve the copy of
the Claim Statement to the Respondent, he chose not to comply the direction of the Tribunal. It deems the Petitioner is
not interested with the case. The non-participation / cooperation of the Petitioner/Applicant, the case is simply
dragged for more than 3 years from the date of registration. It is felt proper not to re-schedule the case to any other
date but to reserve the case for final order.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraph, the case is liable for dismissal.
In the result the ID case stands dismissed.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1509.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
पंजाब नेशनल बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufn’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (a38/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-II)-42]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.38/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023 - IR(B-II)-42]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT & EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
ID No. 38/2016
Present:
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 26.06.2023
3332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri B. Selvakumar
S/o Balakrishnan
Old No. 53, New No. 295, Thirupalthurai
Panayapuram
Thiruvalarsolai Post
Trichy-620005
:
Petitioner
AND
1. The General Manager
Punjab National Bank
Bhikshandar Koil Branch
No. 1, Toll Gate
Trichy-621216
:
First Respondent
2. The Deputy General Manager
Punjab National Bank
Circle Office (HRD)
Trichy-620014
Presently at:
Khandha Enclave
179, Sarojini Street
Ramnagar
Coimbatore-641009
:
Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
Advocates, M/s S. Arunachalam & Associates
For the 1st & 2nd Respondent
:
Advocate, Sri S. Jayaraman
AWARD
This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
2.
The Applicant raises the dispute challenging the denial of his job as Part-Time Sweeper / Peon by the First
Respondent Bank since 30.06.2015.
The case of the Applicant in brief is that he was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper / Peon in the First Respondent Bank
on 07.03.2011. He was all along doing the menial work such as Sweeping, Cleaning and File Stitching, etc. at par with
the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon with initial remuneration paid on daily basis. He was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, Trichy. But the Respondent never recognized the duties discharged by the Applicant nor was
paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The Respondent never considered to absorb the
Applicant in full time job but on the other hand despite of his continuance in job for 4 years, 3 months and 25 days,
the Applicant was denied the job on 30.06.2015 without prior intimation. It is further contended that as per the
Bipartite Settlement dtd. 19.10.1996 when the Applicant has completed 5 years unblemished service need to be
afforded with preference for filling up the permanent vacancies. It is further contended that when some vacancies
arose the Applicant made oral and written representations to place him on the full time job in place of part-time job.
The First Respondent Bank though recommended his name for such post, the Second Respondent did not consider his
case, but resorted to direct recruitment of subordinate cadre posts with prescription of higher qualification, age limit,
etc. vide publishing necessary advertisement in Tamil Daily i.e. “Thanthi” on 03.12.2014. The advertisement was for
filling up of 80 permanent vacancies in Trichy Circle.
3.
It is further pleaded that the denial / termination from job of the Applicant, without prior notice amounts to
retrenchment within the purview of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act. The Applicant / Petitioner was seriously affected
financially and mentally for no fault of him. He raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer – Asstt Labour
Commissioner (C), Puducherry. The dispute since could not be resolved at the said forum, the Applicant approached
this Tribunal seeking relief of his reinstatement in service with backwages and all other attendant benefits and
regularization of his service from the date of his appointment
4.
Both the Respondents entered appearance by filing Common Counter Statement traversing almost all the
pleadings except the admitted facts. The main plank of contention is that the Applicant / Petitioner is not a Workman
within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act. There exists no relationship of Employer-Employee between the
Respondents and the Petitioner. The service condition of the workmen / employees of the Banking Industry including
the Respondent Bank are governed by Sastry Award and Desai Award and also various Bipartite Settlements. As per
the Respondent’s Bank Rules, the case of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is only to be
considered for such employment. In view of the settlement dtd. 07.05.1984 reached by the All India PNB Employees
Federation and the Bank which was circulated vide Circular No. 772 dtd. 17.05.1984 clearly speaks about the
procedures to be followed unless Thikana system is prevailed in the particular area. The said circular also prescribes
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3333
that the recruitment of Part-Time / Full-Time Sweepers shall be as per the eligibility criteria laid down by the Bank
from time to time. In supersession of the said circular, the Bank had issued another PAD Circular dtd. 72
dtd.11.02.2012 which also provides for Rules regarding the eligibility for posting of Part-Time Sweepers in various
branches. It is further contended that no right exists for any person to claim regularization / absorption in Bank dehors
the Bank’s Rules and Guidelines. The Respondent(s) specific pleading is that the Petitioner / Applicant was never
appointed on 07.03.2011 or terminated from service on 30.06.2015. There was no Service Agreement in between the
Bank and the Petitioner. The claim of the Applicant is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Petitioner / Applicant is
not entitled to any relief as sought for.
5.
In support of their respective pleadings, both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The
Petitioner, V. Selvakumar while examined himself as WW1, adduced evidence through one L. Shankaravadivelu as
WW2. The Petitioner relied on 42 documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W42. The Respondent examined the Manager
(HR), Sri Mitra Teja as MW1 and produced 6 documents marked as Ext.M1 to Ext.M6.
The pleadings of both parties, brings out the following issues for determination:
(i)
Whether the Applicant is a Workman within the purview of 2(s) of the ID Act.
(ii)
Whether there exists relationship of Employer-Employee in between the Respondent and the Petitioner.
(iii)
Whether the Applicant was terminated without prior notice?
(iv)
To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled to?
Issues (I) & (II)
6.
Since the Issues I & II are interlinked inter alia are taken up together. Both the Witnesses WW1, the
Petitioner and WW2 adduced evidence in support of the pleadings of the Claim Petition. The Petitioner states to have
joined the Respondent Bank on 07 03.2011 as Part-Time Sweeper / Peon and all along doing the menial work such as
Sweeping, Cleaning and File Stitching, etc. at par with the job profile of a Messenger or a Peon. The initial
remuneration was paid to him on daily basis at the rate of Rs. 150/-. But the Respondent never recognized the duties
discharged by the Applicant nor was paid with equal time-scale wage at par with regular employees. The Respondent
never considered to absorb the Applicant in full time job. But on the other hand despite of his continuance in job for 4
years, 3 months and 24 days, the Applicant was denied the job on30.06.2015 without prior intimation. In view of
the Bipartite Settlement dtd. 19.10.1996, the Applicant is entitled to get the preference to fill up the permanent
vacancy when completes 5 years of service. His representation in this regard was never considered. WW2 viz. Shri L.
Shankaravaduvelu, one retired Clerk of Respondent’s Bank now holds the post of the General Secretary of “Punjab
National Employees Union” which is affiliated to “All India Bank Employees Association” adduces evidence in
support of the Petitioner. He categorically states to have rendered 25 years of service in the Respondent Bank till his
superannuation in the year 2019. He has direct knowledge that since the engagement of the Petitioner on dtd.
07.03.2011 as a Temporary Employee in the Respondent’s Bank, his service was utilized for whole day. The
Petitioner was not only doing the menial work such as Sweeping, Cleaning, etc. but was paying Electricity and
Telephone Bills, Clearing Cheques and Courier and also sometimes escorted the Staff for refill of ATM and many
more works, as good as the job of a Permanent Employee. But the Applicant was never been paid wages /
remuneration at par with a Permanent Employee.
7.
The Respondent on the other hand adduces evidence through the Manager (HR), Mitra Teja who denies the
pleadings of the Petitioner and the statement of both the Witnesses. In support of the contentions made in Counter
Statement, it is stated that the Petitioner cannot plead to project himself as a “Workman” within the purview of
Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as much as he was engaged of and on whenever exigencies arose on the
part of the local Branch Manager who lacks any authority to give appointment to anyone. The Applicant on the other
hand has been adequately paid for his service rendered for the Branch. There exists no Employer-Employee
relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner amounts to backdoor entry
thus the claim for reinstatement with back wages is not sustainable. In view of the discussion held in preceding
paragraphs with regard to the pleadings of the parties, it is to be seen if the Petitioner is a “Workman” within the
purview of the Act and if there exists any Employer-Employee relationship in between the Petitioner and the
Respondent.
8.
In this context the documents filed by the Petitioner are taken into consideration. It reveals a number of
documents under the caption of “Voucher being handled” under Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 for the year 2011, Ext.W5 for the
year 2012, Ext.W13 to Ext.W15 and Ext.W19 for the year 2013, Ext.W21 to Ext.W23 and Ext.W26 to Ext.W28 for
the year 2014 are produced by the Petitioner. In a similar manner some documents with the caption “Contents of
vouchers stitched” are produced by the Petitioner those are Ext.W7 to Ext.W12, Ext.W16 and Ext.W17
consisting of 12 sheets are copies of some expenditure sheets covering the period 2013 to 2015. The Petitioner also
produced the documents under Ext.W6 dtd. 14.07.2012, Ext.W18 dtd. 25.10.2013 and Ext.W30 dtd. 07.03.2014
which are the forwarding letters by the then Branch Manager and Incharge wherein the representations / applications
of the Petitioner were forwarded to the Circle Head, Trichy for consideration of the Petitioner for Permanent Post.
Ext.W31 (consisting of 7 sheets) are the PNB Statement of Account showing entries of amount credited for the period
from 29.12.2012 till 03.05.2014 towards cleaning charges. The application (Tamil language) dtd. 08.05.2014 is
enclosed with the Bio-Data are marked as Ext.W32 and Ext.W33.
3334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
The proposal initiated by the General Secretary vide Ext.W34 dtd. 12.02.2015 was sent to the General
Manager (P&A) to fix the educational criteria for the post of Peon as minimum 8th Standard instead of 10 + 2. It
reveals thereafter the Petitioner made an Application for Permanent Post which was forwarded by the Branch
Manager vide letter dtd. 09.05.2015 to the Circle Head for considering him on Permanent Post vide Ext.W35. The
General Secretary sent a letter to the temporary staff members on dtd. 27.05.2015 vide Ext.W36 to provide the details
in pursuant to Ext.W35. A Special Recruitment Drive was initiated by the Circle Office, Trichy vide Ext.W37 for
recruitment to fill the post. After termination the Petitioner moved the Branch Manager and the General Manager vide
his letters dtd. 07.02.2016 separately under Ext.W38 and Ext.W39 for consideration on Permanent Post. Ext.W40 is
the Circular dtd. 31.05.2017 issued by the Head Office for recruitment of Workman Staff (other than Godown
Keeper). Ext.W41 and Ext.W42 are the extracts of 8th and 9th Bipartite Settlements.
10.
In view of the discussion held supra, when the engagement of the Petitioner in the Respondent’s Bank as a
Part-Time Sweeper on 07.03.2011 stands disputed, being thoroughly challenged, the onus of proof heavily lies on the
Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner though has produced a bunch of documents under Ext.W1 to Ext.W4, Ext.W5,
Ext.W13 to Ext.W15 and Ext.W19, Ext.W21 to Ext.W23 and Ext.W26 to Ext.W28 can in no way rescue the
Petitioner. Moreover, Ext.W16 and Ext.W17 consisting of 12 sheets are the copies of some expenditure sheets
covering the period 2013 to 2015. These documents also do not substantiate the claim of the Petitioner to have been
engaged on 07.03.2011
11.
On the other hand inference can be drawn in favour of the Petitioner in view of vide Ext,W6, Ext.W18,
Ext.W30 and Ext.W35 which are forwarding letters in respect of the Applications of the Petitioner to consider him for
the Permanent post of Sweeper. The respective Branch Managers while forwarding the Applications vide their
forwarding letters under the above exhibits categorically mentioned that the Petitioner has been serving as Part-Time
Sweeper since the opening of the Branch i.e. 07.03.2011. Ext.W31 (consisting of 7 sheets) are the PNB Statement of
Account showing entries of amount credited for the period from 29.12.2012 till 03.05.2014 towards cleaning charges.
12.
In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs, it is held that the Petitioner was engaged as a Part-
Time Sweeper from 07.03.2011 and thus is a “Workman” as defined under 2(s) of the ID Act. It is also an admitted
fact that even though the Petitioner fails to link up the chain to prove his continuity in Temporary Post from the date
of joining i.e. 07.03.2011 till his oral termination (as claimed) on 30.06.2015, the PNB Bank Statement (Ext.W31) as
stated above establishes that his engagement is in continuation till 03.05.2014. This document shows that the Bank
credited the Clearing Charges to the Petitioner’s Account. The claim of the Petitioner regarding the disbursement of
the remuneration / dues by the Respondent’s Bank credited to his Bank Account for the period from 29.12.2012 to
03.05.2014 stands undisputed since not being challenged by the Respondent. In the fact and circumstance, it is held
that there exists Employer-Employee relationship in between the Respondents and the Petitioner.
The Issues (i) & (ii) are answered in favour of the Petitioner.
Issues (III) & (IV)
13.
The undisputed admitted fact remains that the Petitioner was never issued with an Appointment or
Termination Letter. However, the claim of the Petitioner regarding his engagement in the Respondent’s Bank on
07.03.2011 has been amply proved through the documents as discussed above but at the same time the Petitioner
failed to produce a single scrap of document to prove his continuity in job till his oral termination on 30.06.2015. In
this context, it is pertinent to mention that the documents (Bank Statement) exhibited under Ext.W31 discloses the
disbursement of the remuneration / dues credited to the Bank Account of the Petitioner by the Respondent for the
period from 29.12.2012 till 03.05.2014 continuously.
14.
The argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner claiming the Permanent Post in view of
Bipartite Settlement dtd. 19.10.1996 has got no force as much as the claim of the Petitioner itself is that he had served
only for 4 years, 3 months and 24 days. This part of his contention is also not accepted in view of the discussion held
supra. No document since filed to link up the chain of continuity of his engagement from the date of 03.05.2014 till
his claim of oral termination on 30.06.2015, the argument of the Learned Counsel regarding the service rendered by
the Petitioner for a period of 4 years, 3 months and 24 days is also not accepted. Some other documents since not
applicable to the case of the Petitioner are not discussed.
15.
Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence the claim of the Petitioner to have worked continuously from the
date of joining till 30.06.2015 cannot be accepted, but the entries in his Bank Account Ext.W31 just cannot be brushed
aside. In the peculiar circumstance, inference can be drawn (in view of the entries reflected in Ext.W31) that the
Petitioner was disengaged on 03.05.2014, as no further entries were made available in the Bank Account regarding the
credit entries. Since both the parties failed to produce any notice of termination / disengagement, the last entry in
Ext.W31 i.e. 03.05.2014 is necessarily taken into account that the Petitioner was disengaged on 03.05.2014. It deems
the Petitioner worked for 240 days continuously preceding to the date of disengagement i.e. 03.05.2014. Such
disengagement without Prior Notice or Notice Pay amounts to termination and attracts Section-25(f) of the ID Act.
Such disengagement undoubtedly might have caused severe financial hardship to the Petitioner to maintain his
livelihood as well as such act of the Respondent Management denying job that too at the middle age of a Petitioner
certainly would have also caused mental agony. Such abrupt action of the Respondent Management is found
unethical, illogical and defeats the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner is accordingly is entitled to the relief as
sought for.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3335
16.
In view of the discussions held in preceding paragraphs, since the Petitioner was employed on a Temporary
Post and the post was never been converted to a Permanent Post, it would be impossible on the part of the Respondent
to reinstate the Petitioner as the relief sought for. In the circumstance, in lieu of reinstatement and backwages, the
Petitioner is entitled to be compensated with a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousand
only) which would best serve the purpose.
The Issues (iii) & (iv) are answered in favour of the Petitioner.
The ID stands allowed.
17.
In the result, the Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rupees One lakh Thirty fifty thousand only)
as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwage to the Petitioner, Sri B. Selvakumar within a period of two
months from the date of notification in the Gazette, failing which the Respondent is liable to pay 9% of Interest on it
from the date of Order till the date of payment.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri B. Selvakumar
:
WW2, Sri L. Sankaravadivelu
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri Mitra Teja
Documents Marked:-
On the petitioners side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
12.08.2011
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W2
16.08.2011
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W3
28.10.2011
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W4
10.11.2011
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W5
13.01.2012
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W6
14.07.2012
Letter to consider the representation of B.Selvakumar
Ex.W7
01.09.2012
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W8
03.09.2012
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W9
01.10.2012
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W10
31.10.2012
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W11
01.11.2012
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W12
02.11.2012
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W13
01.02.2013
Contents of Vouchers stitched by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W14
02.02.2013
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W15
04.02.2013
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W16
08.04.2013
Expenditure and Payment register
Ex.W17
10.04.2013
Expenditure and Payment register
Ex.W18
25.10.2013
Application of B.Selvakumar been forwarded
Ex.W19
31.10.2013
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W20
24.12.2013
Request for posting by B.Selvakumar
forwarded by Manager
Ex.W21
15.02.2014
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W22
17.02.2014
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W23
17.02.2014
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W24
22.02.2014
Memorandum for absorption
Ex.W25
24.02.2014
Conversion of PTS as Peons
Ex.W26
26.02.2014
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W27
27.02.2014
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W28
28.02.2014
Voucher being handled by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W29
04.03.2014
Circular regarding absorption of PTS
Ex.W30
07.03.2014
Forwarding the application of B.Selvakumar
Ex.W31
05.05.2014
Pass Book Entries B.Selvakumar
Ex.W32
08.05.2014
Application from B.Selvakumar
Ex.W33
09.05.2014
Biodata of B.Selvakumar
Ex.W34
12.02.2015
Education qualification to Peons
3336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ex.W35
09.05.2015
Manager forwarding the application of B.Selvakumar
Ex.W36
27.05.2015
Letter from General Secretary from the Union
Ex.W37
01.07.2015
Special Recruitment trivet of Peons
Ex.W38
07.02.2016
Demand of Employment after Termination to
the Branch Manager by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W39
07.02.2016
Demand of Employment after Termination to
the General Manager by B.Selvakumar
Ex.W40
31.05.2017
Circular from the General Secretary of the
Employees Federation
Ex.W41
-
Relevant Portion of 8th bipartite settlement
Ex.W42
-
Relevant Portion of 9th bipartite settlement
On the Respondent side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.M1
07.05.1984
Settlement regarding fixation of wages and other
Allied matters like Recruitment and Appointment.
Ex.M2
11.02.2012
Circular issued by the Respondent Bank regarding
posting of Part-Time Sweepers in the Branch
Ex.M3
25.03.2014
Circular banning the Temporary Appointment in the bank.
Ex.M4
21.09.2015
Circular issued by the Bank with regard to the
Recruitment and Appointment of Part-Time Sweeper.
Ex.M5
04.07.2016
HRMD Circular Letter dated 10/2016 issued by the
Bank with regard to alternative mechanism in lieu of
interview for recruitment of Full Time/Part Time
Sweeper in Subordinate Cadre.
Ex.M6
28.11.2018
HRMD Circular No.430 banning the Temporary
Appointment in the Bank.
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1510.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मᮤास पोटᭅ ᮝ᭭ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (a121/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-33011/04/2014-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.121/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Madras Port Trust and their
workmen.
[No. L-33011/04/2014 - IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI
Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 121/2014
Dtd: 07.08.2023
The General Secretary
The Madras Port Trust Employees Union
SCC Anthony Pillai Bhawan
No. 34 (Old No. ), Second Line Beach
Chennai-600001
:
1st Party/Petitioner
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3337
AND
M/s Chennai Container Terminal Private Ltd.
Rep by its General Manager – HR/IR/Admin.
Chennai Port Trust Administrative Building
Ground Floor, No. 1, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600001
:
2nd Party Management
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: Advocates, M/s Row and Reddy
For the 1st & 2nd Management
:
Advocates, M/s . Ramasubramaniam &
Associates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-33011/04/2014-IR (B.II)
dtd. 19.11.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the management of CCTL/DP World, Chennai regarding not extending the
benefit of 15 item allowance as per Settlement dtd. 19.01.2011 to the Officer as claimed by the
management is justifiable or not? What relief the employees involved in the dispute is entitled to?”
2.
A little reference to the backdrop of the case needs mention that at the fag end of the disposal of the
proceeding, the Petitioner’s Union came up with a Memo for Withdrawal of the case whereas the Hon’ble Court
being approached by the Respondent in WP No. 8893/2017 and WMP No. 10060 of 2017 dtd 17.04.2017 imparted
instruction to the Tribunal to go on proceeding but no Award can be passed without permission of the Hon’ble Court.
In this context, the case in hand needs a little discussion with regard to the journey of the case proceeding.
3.
That on receipt of the above reference from the appropriate Government, the same is registered as
ID No. 121/2014. Notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance 29.12.2014 and subsequent dates. The
Respondent entered appearance by filing Counter Statement. The Affidavit-Evidence was filed by Petitioner’s Union
and the case was adjourned to several dates for Cross Examination of the Petitioner by Respondent till 18.04.2017
when the Respondent submitted to have approached the Hon’ble Court in a Writ Petition No. 8893/2017 and sought
for adjournment to produce the order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The case was accordingly adjourned to
04.05.2017. In between the copy of the order in W.P. 8893 0f 2017 and WMP No. 10060 of 2017 dtd 17.04.2017 of
Hon’ble High Court was received by this Tribunal on 27.04.2017. The Hon’ble Court imparted direction that ;
“take notice for the second Respondent while proceeding can go on, no award can be passed without the
permission of this Court “
4.
In view of the Order of the Hon’ble Court when the matter was taken up to proceed with the case, was listed
to several dates. But no progress was held in the proceeding as the post of Presiding Officer was lying vacant till
04.03.2019 when the Tribunal was functional as the vacant post of Presiding Officer was filled up. The proceeding
was taken up for cross examination of Petitioner and listed to 02.04.2019 and thereafter to subsequent dates till
19.02.2020 as the Respondent sought for adjournments. Due to outbreak of the Pandemic COVID-19, there was no
progress in the Proceeding till 30.08.2021. The Cross-Examination of the Petitioner could not be held as he himself
with held to come to dock , not only on 30.08.2021 but on subsequent dates tilll03.03.2022 intervening three dates.
Since despite of several opportunities were made available to the Petitioner’s Union, the Authorized Representative,
the General Secretary of the Union choose not to co-operate the proceeding, his Examination-in-Chief (Proof of
Affidavit) was expunged on 03.03.2022. The case of the Petitioner was closed. The Respondent was directed to file
Affidavit-Evidence of their Witness. The case was listed to 02.05.2022 and to 02.08.2022 when the Respondent filed
Affidavit-Evidence. The Examination-in-Chief of the MW1 was held on 17.10.2022. The Petitioner did not cross
examine MWI, even though the case was adjourned to several dates (intervening almost 4 dates) till 18.04.2023. The
cross examination was treated as Nil and the Respondent was directed to adduce further evidence, if any. The case
was listed to 01.05.2023. On that day the learned Counsel for both parties were present. The Counsel for the
Petitioner’s Union files a Memo expressing the Union’s willingness to withdraw the case. Since the General Secretary
was not present, due direction was imparted to the General Secretary to remain present for hearing on the Withdrawal
Petition from both sides. The case was listed to 04.05.2023 for hearing on the Withdrawal Petition. Since the Interim
Order of Stay with regard to pass any final order without the permission of the Hon’ble Court, the Counsel for the
Respondent (the Petitioner in WP) was directed to furnish the current status of the Writ Petition. The case was
accordingly listed to 15.05.2023 when the Respondent Counsel fails to file the current status of the Writ Petition No.
8893/2017, files the copy of the Interim Order dtd. 17.04.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid WP
but sought for time to furnish the current status. The Respondent was accordingly directed to furnish the Status Report
of the Writ Petition if any Vacation Order was passed so far the Order of Interim Stay dtd. 17.04.2017 is concerned.
The case was listed to 30.06.2023. None appeared on behalf of the Petitioner Union. The Respondent Counsel is
present and files Memo regarding the current status of Writ Petition No. 8893/2017 that the Hon’ble Court has
dismissed the Writ Petition as Withdrawn vide Order dtd. 22.06.2023. The Web Copy is enclosed with the Memo.
Accordingly, the case was listed for hearing the both parties on the Withdrawal Petition filed by the Petitioner. On
that day, the Respondent Counsel was present but the General Secretary of the First Party Union was absent.
However, the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that since the Writ Petition has already been dismissed on being
Withdrawn, there is no rider on the Tribunal to pass any appropriate order on the Memo of Withdrawal filed by the
Petitioner’s Union. It is also submitted that the dispute has been resolved amicably. With the above backdrop, when
the Respondent produces the Web Copy of the Order in WP No. 8893/2017 dtd. 22.06.2023, that the said Writ
Petition was dismissed as Withdrawn by the Petitioner (the present Respondent). it deems there is no more restriction
imposed on this Tribunal to pass the Final Order. The Web Copy is as follows ;
3338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Business
:
Dismissed as Withdrawal
Nature of Disposal
:
Dismissed as Withdrawal
Disposal Date
:
22.06.2023”
In view of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Court dtd. 22.06.2023 in the WP (supra and as per Web Copy) above, the
Memo of Withdrawal filed by the Petitioner Union is taken into consideration. Even though, the General Secretary of
the First Party Union failed to appear before this Tribunal, the Learned Counsel for the First Party Union since
moved the Petition for Withdrawal and when no objection was raised by the Respondent, it is held that there would
be no legal impediment to pass appropriate order on Memo filed by the Petitioner’s Union for Withdrawal wherein it
is stated by the Petitioner’s Union as follows:
“That during the pendency of the dispute, the member of the Union have taken a decision not to pursue
the dispute further due to change in circumstances and to withdraw the same with liberty to raise as and
when required”.
Similarly, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent raises no objection to the Memo of Withdrawal filed by the
Petitioner Union. On the other hand, submits to pass appropriate order.
4.
In view of the submission of the Authorized Representative / Counsels for both parties and
discussion held supra, it is clear that there exists no dispute for adjudication. Hence, Memo filed by the First Party
Union to withdraw the dispute in ID 121/2014 is allowed.
The ID No. 121/2014 stands dismissed as Withdrawn.
An Award is passed accordingly.
DIPTI MOHAPATRA,Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1511.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/84/2017-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 16/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/84/2017 - IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 16 OF 2017
PARTIES: Shiv Shankar Harijan.
Vs.
The General Manager, Satgram Area of ECL and Another.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3339
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
12.06.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/84/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 16.11.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is (i) The General Manager, Satgram Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited, (ii) The Agent, J. K. Nagar (R)
Colliery under Satgram Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its J.K.Nagar
Colliery under Satgram Area in not regularising the workman Shri Shiv Shankar Harijan as UG Trammer in Piece
Rate Category in contravention of office order No. ECL/JKN/AGENT/PER/2003/298 dated 01/03/.02.2003 is just and
legal? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/84/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 16.11.2017 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 16 of 2017 was registered on 28.11.2017
and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited appeared along with
Mr. Subir Dey for his examination as Management witness -1. On repeated calls at 12:55 PM none appeared for Shiv
Shankar Harijan, the workman. The case is fixed up today for evidence of workman witness. Mr. S. K. Pandey, union
representative is not found available. On the earlier occasion an order was passed on 23.122022 directing Mr.
Pandey to remain present and produce the workman for evidence and in default, the case shall be disposed of in the
form of No Dispute Award.
3.
The case was registered on 28.11.2017 and Notice were issued to both parties. Shiv Shankar Harijan filed
written statement on 12.03.2018 and the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited filed written statement on
10.10.2022. The Management also filed affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Subir Dey. Since the aggrieved workman has not
taken any steps from 26.11.2018 onwards, it appears to me that he is not inclined to proceed further with this case.
The Industrial Dispute referred to this Tribunal is accordingly disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1512.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
इंटीᮕेटेड कोल माइᳲनंग िलिमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/1/2014-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
3340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 06/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Integrated Coal Mining Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/1/2014 - IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 06 OF 2014
PARTIES:
Debnath Chakraborty
Vs.
Management of Integrated Coal Mining Limited & Another
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: None.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
05.06.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/1/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 18.03.2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Integrated Coal Mining Limited & P.L.R. Projects Private Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the dismissal of the workman Sri Debnath Chakraborty S/o Kushadhaj Chakraborty from service
by the Management of I.C.M.L, Sarisatoli Open caste Project Mine site office, Kapista, Distt. Burdwan is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/1/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 18.03.2014 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 06 of 2014 was registered on 03.04.2014
and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned Advocate for Management of Integrated Coal Mining Limited, Sarisatoli Open Caste
Project Mine, Kapista and P.L.R. Projects Private Limited is present. The case is fixed up today for cross examination
of Debnath Chakraborty, the workman witness. Despite notice issued to the workman under registered post at his
address appearing in his affidavit-in-chief, the workman failed to turn up on consecutive dates. Initially Mr. Aninda
Chakraborty, learned advocate appeared for the workman but he is not found available on call today at 12:25 PM.
3.
After registration of case on 07.07.2014, written statements were filed by the workman as well as on behalf
of the employer. The case was fixed up for evidence. On 15.09.2015, Debnath Chakraborty filed his affidavit-in-chief
along with documents. Since 07.09.2016 none appeared for the workman until 29.11.2017 when the examination in
chief was not pressed. The case is pending for nine years but the witness has not turned up for cross-examination.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3341
Under such circumstances, it appears to me that the aggrieved workman is not inclined to proceed with this Industrial
Dispute. Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed in form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 15 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1513.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/457/2004-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 08/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/457/2004-IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 08 OF 2006
PARTIES:
Ranjit Mahali
Vs.
Management of Satgram Project under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
09.06.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/457/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 24.05.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
3342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employer, that is the Management of Satgram Project under Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ranjit Mahali, the
dependant son of Late Lachmi Mahali for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Satgram Project under Satgram Area of M/s. ECL in denying
employment to Shri Ranjit Mahali, dependant son of Late Lachmi Mahali, Ex- Wagon Loader is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the dependant son is entitled?”
1.
After receiving Order No. L-22012/457/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 24.05.2006 from the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 08 of 2006 was registered on 31.07.2006.
Notices were issued to the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited as well as the union representative of Koyala
Mazdoor Congress representing the dependant of the deceased workman, directing them to file their written statement
of claim along with relevant documents and list of witnesses.
2.
On 02.12.2009, a written statement was submitted by the union representing the dependant of deceased
workman. It has been averred that Lachmi Mahali, a permanent employee of the company who was posted as a wagon
loader at Satgram (R) Colliery died on 21.06.1993 while in service. It is contended that as per provisions of clause
9.4.0 of NCWA IV, Ranjit Mahali, son of deceased employer who applied for providing employment against death of
his mother is entitled to employment on compassionate ground. Further case of the union is that Ranjit Mahali had
submitted documents before the Management of ECL and after proper screening, the dependant son of Lachmi Mahali
was sent for Initial Medical Examination where he was declared fit for the job. After screening and Initial Medical
Examination, proposal for employment of Ranjit Mahali was sent to ECL Headquarters for approval but the
Management of the company communicated nothing and the of dependant son of Lachmi Mahali is still waiting for
employment. The version of the workman is that the Management of the company has neither provided employment
to the dependant son nor did they reject the proposal. It is contended that Ranjit Mahali is facing starvation as he has
no means of sustenance and wasted several years entangled in this dispute. It is the case of the union that the
Management signed a Tripartite Settlement before the RLC (C) and ALC (C), Asansol on 22.05.2007 and 23.05.2007
in which it was agreed that the cases which were pending prior to 01.07.1996 would be considered and the delay in
claiming employment after death of deceased employee would be ignored. It is urged that Management of Satgram
Project is deliberately delaying the matter and not providing employment to dependant of Lachmi Mahali according
to the terms of NCWA, thereby depriving the dependant from his legitimate claim and right.
3.
The Management of ECL has filed a written statement denying the locus standi of union to represent the
case. It is claimed that Lachmi Mahali died on 21.06.1993 but the union raised the dispute in 2002 after lapse of a
decade. It is stated that an application dated 11.09.1993 was submitted by Ranjit Mahali along with few documents
claiming himself to be dependant son of Lachmi Mahali. It is contended that the applicant could not produce any
satisfactory material that he is the son of the deceased employee Lachmi Mahali making him eligible for an
employment on the death of Lachmi Mahali. The Management of ECL has denied the claim of Ranjit Mahali on the
ground that it is not a statutory right of a survivor of a deceased employee to have any employment but it is provided
to one of the dependants of the bereaved family on compassionate ground if he is otherwise fit for employment. It is
urged that Ranjit Mahali was not found fit and that he did not submit his application within six months of death of
Lachmi Mahali. According to the Management, the Industrial Dispute raised by the union is liable to be dismissed.
4.
Ranjit Mahali adduced evidence by examining himself as WW-1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief on
26.03.2013 and was cross examined on 18.06.2013. It was found that apart from the oral testimony of the petitioner,
no documents related to service of his mother or correspondence between the dependant son and the Management of
ECL was filed. Subsequently on the prayer of the union, Ranjit Mahali was recalled for his re-examination on
29.11.2022. In course of his evidence on re-examination, he produced :
(i) Copy of death certificate of his mother (marked as Exhibit W-1)
(ii) Copy of death registration certificate of Lachmi Mahali (marked as Exhibit W-II)
(iii) Copy of letter dated 21.09.1996 issued by Personnel Manager, Satgram Project addressed to the Area
Medical Officer for holding Initial Medical Examination of Ranjit Mahali (marked as Exhibit W-III)
(iv) Letter dated 05.05.2001 issued by Dy. Personnel Manager, Satgram Project addressed to the Personnel
Manager, Satgram Area informing that Ranjit Mahali was found fit for any job in the mine (marked as
Exhibit W-IV)
(v) Letter dated 21/22.05.2001 issued by Personnel Manager, Satgram Area addressed to Dy. Personnel
Manager, Satgram (R) Colliery where it is stated that though it is a belated case but the proposal for
employment of Ranjit Mahali may be processed (marked as Exhibit W-V)
(vi) Copy of application of Ranjit Mahali addressed to the Agent, Satgram Project (marked as Exhibit W-VI)
(vii) A Xerox copy of Voter ID card (marked as Exhibit W-VII)
(viii) An official direction of Director (Personnel & IR) dated 25.07.2003 (marked as Exhibit W-VIII)
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3343
Service book of Lachmi Mahali produced by ECL is marked as Exhibit M-I. An application of Ranjit Mahali claiming
payment of money in respect of Life Cover Scheme of his mother is marked as Exhibit M-II and his signatures on the
Indemnity Bond submitted before the company is marked as Exhibit M-III.
5. Ample opportunity was provided to the Management of ECL for adducing their evidence from 25.11.2014 to
13.12.2016 but the Management chose not to adduce any evidence in their attempt to justify their action in not
allowing the claim for employment. Though the employer company is the custodian of all correspondence and
service documents, they have refrained from placing the same before this Tribunal. On 14.09.2022, ECL was
directed to produce the Service Records, Claim application and No Objection of other legal heirs lying with the
company. A few documents were produced which were admitted in evidence at the time of re-cross-examination
of Workman Witness-1.
6.
The point for consideration at this stage is whether Ranjit Mahali, the son of late Lachmi Mahali is entitled to
any employment under Eastern Coalfields Limited in consonance with the provision laid down in clause 9.4.0 of
NCWA IV.
7.
Admittedly, Lachmi Mahali was a permanent employee, posted as wagon loader at Satgram (R) Colliery and
she died in harness on 21.06.1993, giving rise to a cause of action to the dependant son to lay claim for employment.
Service Record Excerpt of Lachmi Mahali has been produced as ‘X’ for identification, which indicates that Ranjit
Mahali was twelve years of age at the time when the form was filled up in the year 1987. His age appears to have been
recorded as eleven years in the year 1986 as appearing in the Form for availing LTC. From the evidence on record, it
is gathered that on 21.09.1996, the Personnel Manager of Satgram Project had issued a letter to the Area Medical
Officer of Satgram Area Hospital forwarding the names of nominees of the deceased employees for holding Initial
Medical Examination for employment under para 9.4.2 (death case). The name of Ranjit Mahali appears against serial
no. 4. in that letter. It is obvious that on the basis of a claim made by the dependants of the workman, the name of
Ranjit Mahali was nominated for his Initial Medical Examination.
8.
In another letter dated 05.05.2001 (Exhibit W-IV) issued by Dy. Personnel Manager, Satgram Project,
addressed to the Personnel Manager, Satgram Area it was communicated that Ranjit Mahali, son of Lachmi Mahali
had applied for employment against the death of his mother and the proposal had been pending since long and
havebeen dealt by the then Personnel Manager, Satgram Project (Sri A.C. Das Sarkar). In his letter he stated that the
proposal was revived on frequent approaches by the claimant and thereafter the Area Medical Officer, Satgram Area
was advised to hold an Initial Medical Examination in respect of the dependant and accordingly Initial Medical
Examination was done and the dependant was declared “Fit for any job in Mine”. On a close reading of the document
(Exhibit W-IV), I find that all formalities for the purpose of providing employment to Ranjit Mahali had been
completed and a checklist of documents was provided but the proceeding stopped at that stage without further
progress.
9.
In reply to the letter dated 05.05.2001 (Exhibit W-IV) of the Dy. Personnel Manager, the Personnel Manager,
Satgram Area stated that though “it is a belated case, never-the-less proposal may be processed completing in all
respect mentioning therein the details regarding delay so that we can send the same to the higher authority for their
kind perusal and necessary action in that regard”. After all such culmination, the finality has come to a grinding halt
due to the inaction on the part of the management of ECL, rendering the entire exercise futile.
10.
Ranjit Mahali’s year of birth appears to be 1975 and he was found medically fit and eligible for performing
any job in the mines. Valuable time in the life of the dependant son has been wasted due to the failure on the part of
the Management of ECL to arrive at a collective decision on this issue in 30 years, oblivious of the essence of time in
a person’s life. The Management of ECL is duty bound to honour it’s own decision reflected in various clauses of
NCWA. According to para 9.4.0 of NCWA IV, the employer company is bound to provide employment to one of the
dependants of the worker who died in course of employment and the dependant to be considered for employment
should be physically fit, suitable for employment and not more than 35 years at the time of death of the workman. In
the present case, the petitioner Ranjit Mahali was within the stipulated age limit and below 35 years on 21.06.1993.
The Management of ECL has acted in a wrongful and arbitrary manner by not providing suitable employment to
Ranjit Mahali after holding IME. Accordingly the Management of Satgram Project, ECL is directed to grant
employment to Ranjit Mahali and complete the entire proceeding within two months from the date of notification of
this Award. In case any further delay is caused, the ECL company shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.
10,000/- per month till the dependant of deceased workman is placed in the service roll of the company.
11.
In the light of my findings, the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of Ranjit Mahali, dependant of the
deceased workman.
Hence,
ORDERED
the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of Ranjit Mahali, the dependant son of the deceased employee
Lachmi Mahali. Let an Award be drawn in favour of dependant petitioner directing the Management of Satgram
Project under Eastern Coalfields Limited for providing suitable employment to Ranjit Mahali within two months from
the date of notification. In default, the company (E.C.L.) will be liable to pay damages to Ranjit Mahali at the rate of
3344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Rs. 10,000/- per month until the employment proceeding is completed. Let copies of this Award in duplicate be sent to
the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/154/2007-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 72/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/154/2007–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 72 OF 2007
PARTIES: Murtaza Ali
Vs.
Management of Chinakuri III Pit Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
06.06.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/154/2007-IR(CM_II) dated 18.09.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Chinakuri III Pit Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Chinakury III Pit Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing
Shri Murtaza Ali w.e.f. 02.01.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3345
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/154/2007-IR(CM_II) dated 18.09.2007 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 72 of 2007 was registered on 01.10.2007
and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, Union representative of the workman appears and submits that Murtaza Ali, the dismissed workman has
expired but his legal representatives did not contact him. It is further submitted that the Industrial Dispute may be
dismissed.
3.
The case was registered on 01.010.2007 for adjudicating the question as to whether the dismissal of
Murtaza Ali w.e.f. 02.01.2002 is legal and justified. Written statement was field by Mr. R. K. Tripathi, Union
representative claiming that his dismissal was illegal. Murtaza Ali filed affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined on
26.03.2011. No documents relating to Enquiry Proceeding has been produced by the workman in course of his
evidence.
4.
Written Statement was submitted by the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited denying the allegations. It
is stated that the fairness of the Enquiry Proceeding was required to be decided as preliminary issue and if the
Tribunal holds that the Enquiry Proceeding is unfair for any reason in that event the Management may be given an
opportunity to prove the charges on merit.
5.
On 13.06.2013 Management declined to adduce any evidence and the case was fixed up for hearing of
argument. At this stage due to non-impleading of the legal heirs of the deceased workman Murtaza Ali the case cannot
be disposed of on merit. After ample opportunity given to the legal representative of dismissed workman and the
union no step has been taken for substitution of the legal heirs. In the above premises, the case is dismissed for
default.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Reference case is dismissed. An award be drawn up in the light of the above finding. Let copies of
the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय खा᳒ िनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
सह
लखनऊ ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22011/5/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22011/5/2019–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
3346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. -25/2019
Ref. No.-L-22011/5/2019-IR(CM-II), Dt. 13.05.2019
Sri Abdul Khalik S/o late Hasan Mehandi
450/75, Muftiganj, Dareevali Gali,
Post-Chauwk Lucknow-226003
……. Applicant
VERSUS
1.
The Regional Manager
FCI, 07 R, Dalibag,
Lucknow, 226001
2.
The General Manager
U.P. FCI, TC/3V
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010
Lucknow-226003
3.
Secretary
FCI Retired Officer & Employees Welfare Association
U.P. Lucknow-226001
……. Opposite Parties
AWARD
By Letter No. L-22011/5/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 13.05.2019 the present industrial dispute has been referred
for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section10 the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:-
“D;k izcU/ku] Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe] y[kuÅ o vU; }kjk Jh vCnqy [kkfyd iq= Lo0 glu esagnh fjVk;MZ dks
ljnkj in ls yksMj in ij fjo'kZu djuk o fnukad 11-09-2001 ls 29-05-2003 dh vof/k dks fu;fer u fd;k
tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa oS/k gS+\ ;fn ugha] rks oknh fdl jkgr dks ikus dk ik= gSa\**
Accordingly Industrial Dispute No. 25/2019 registered before this Tribunal.
On 13.01.2020 claimant filed written statement praying therein the following relief:-
;g fd Jheku Jek;qDr egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr vof/k fnukad 11-09-2001 ls fnukad 28-05-
2003 dks jsxqyjkbTM djus gsrq foi{khx.k dks vkns'k tkjh djus dh d`ik djsaA
;g fd foi{kh ¼Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe½ dks funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd os izkFkhZ dks cxSj volj iznku fd;s gq;s
,drjQk fu.kZ; ysdj ljnkj in ls lh/ks yksMj in ij fjoZV fd;k gS] mls fujLr djsa rFkk fu;ekuqlkj ljnkj
in dk ykHk iznku djsaA
On 23.12.2020 respondent filed their written statement inter-alia taking the main plea as under:-
That the contents of para no. 2 and 3 of the Application are totally incorrect, wrong, misrepresented, hence
vehemently denied and deserves to be rejected out-rightly. Moreover, it is respectfully submitted here that the
Applicant was engaged in the corporation as “MANDAL” on 28.05.1984 and remained in service till 10.09.2001 on
the post of “SARDAR”. It is pertinent to mention here that applicant without any information/intimation remains
absent from the services w.e.f. 11.09.2001 to 29.05.2003, as such his services came to an end as per Clause 14 of
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3347
Standing Order of IE Act 1946 applicable to Departmental labour and thereafter on the request of the Applicant
SRM/GM taking the lenient view, fresh appointment was given to him on the initial post of “LOADER”.
That the contents of para no. 6 to 14 of the Statement of Claims stated are misconceived, misrepresented
wrong and false, hence denied. It is further submitted that Applicant after the expiry of the lien period (1984-2001)
never applied before the SRM/G.M. Regional Office, Lucknow for the Regularization of his services in the
Corporation and remained totally absent w.e.f. 11.09.2001 to 29.05.2003, without any information/intimation to the
Concerned Authority in the proper manner. So, obviously after a break in service from- 11.09.2002 to 29.05.2003
again on the request of the Applicant SRM/GM Regional Office, Lucknow taking the lenient view, fresh appointment
was given to him on the initial post of “Loader” only due to his own follies and lapses and no incontinence or
discomfort was ever ensued on the part of Opp. Parties. Further, it is clarified that as per our Standing Order for the
industrial establishment of FCI-If the workman remains absent for 15 days beyond the period of leave originally
granted or subsequently extended he shall be given 15 days Notice (by registered Post with acknowledgement dues at
his leave address) to explain the cause of his absence. In, case, his explanation is received to satisfaction of the leave
sanctioning Authority or office specified in this behalf by the employer, he will not lose his line on his job. In case no
explanation is received or if received, it is not considered satisfactory and the workman returns to the duty he will be
given a fresh appointment. He shall be entitled to make a representation to the SRM/G.M. Regional Office, Lucknow
regarding regularization of the service and the absence for continuity of service with all consequential benefits, who
shall decide the issue on the basis of Natural Justice. The decisions of the SRM/General Manager shall be final. True
Copy of the Certified Standing Order For the Industrial establishment of the Food Corporation of India has been
Annexed herewith as Annexure No.-1.
So, now it is beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was given a fresh appointment on 30.05.2003 to the
initial post of “LOADER” after a break in service w.e.f. 11.09.2001 to 29.05.2003, without any
information/intimation to the Concerned Authority in the proper manner and the explanation tendered by the
Applicant was not at all up to the mark and to the entire satisfaction of the concerned leave sanctioning Authority. So,
to put the entire blame on the shoulder of the management is quite unreasonable and untenable in the Eyes of Law.
On 23.12.2020 time was granted to file rejoinder affidavit thereafter on various day time was granted to the
workman to file rejoinder affidavit
On 06.03.2023 an order passed which is quoted herein below:-
“Matter taken up in the revised list.
Parties absent.
In spite of last opportunity rejoinder is not filed, accordingly opportunity to file rejoinder is closed.
List on 29.05.2023 for ex-parte hearing. Office to issue notice”.
On perusal on record the position is emerge out that in pursuance to the order dated 06.03.2023 a notice was
issued to the claimant.
On 18.05.2023 when the matter taken up in the revise cause list neither the workman nor any legal
representative as appeared on this behalf Sri P.K. Sinha learned counsel for appellant for the F.C.I. argued that in spite
of several opportunities, no claim has been filed by claimant till date as such, keeping in view of the order dated
17.01.2023 the matter be dismissed.
Finding & conclusion:-
Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order to
establish his claim as per the reference dated 03.09.2020.
So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V.K. Raj Industries v.
Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:-
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to
prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by
the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief’’.
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 208 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti V. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.
V.K. Raj Industries V. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Ors, 1984 (49)
3348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. V. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a partly is on the party making the allegation. The test would
be, who would fail if no evidence is led”.
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services Vs. Secretary-cum G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:-
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed”.
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and, and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
05.06.2023
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-सह-
िबलासपुर (छ.ग.) ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
संया 02/आई.डी.एट/रेफरी/ कᱶᮤी /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/45/2018-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 02 /I.D.Act./ Ref / Central /2018) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, BILASHPUR (C.G) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/45/2018–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
अनुल नक
᭠यायालय-᮰म ᭠यायाधीश, औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम ᮰म ᭠यायालय, िबलासपुर (छ.ग. )
(पीठासीन-अिवनाश के. िᮢपाठी )
ᮧक.ᮓ.-02/आई.डी.एट/ᳯरफ/से᭠ᮝल/2018
संि᭭थत ᳰदनांक- 01.11.2018
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3349
गᱶदराम िपता ᳲचंताराम
माफᭅत- डी.पी. शराफ, ᭔वाइंट जनरल सेᮓेटरी,
रा᳦ीय कॉलरी मजदूर कांᮕेस, पं.ᮓ.-3519
पता Ფा.नं.ई-22, 15 ᭣लॉक, कॉलोनी, कोरबा (छ.ग.)
495677
.............ᮧथम पᭃ
// बनाम //
एस.ई.सी.एल.
माफᭅत-सब एᳯरया मैनेजर, रजगामार सब एᳯरया
कोरबा एᳯरया, पो᭭ट-रजगामार कॉलरी रजगामार,
िजला कोरबा (छ.ग.) 495683
.........ि᳇तीय पᭃगण
ᮧथम पᭃ ᳇ाराः
᮰ी डी.पी. शराफ अिधवᲦा
ि᳇तीय पᭃ ᳇ाराः
᮰ी िववेक वमाᭅ अिधवᲦा
// अिधिनणᭅय //
(पाᳯरत ᳰदनांक-21.08.2023)
1.
इस अिधिनणᭅय के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃकार गᱶदराम िपता ᳲचंताराम और ि᳇तीय पᭃकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के बीच
औ᳒ोिगक िववाद िव᳒मान होने के कारण, सेशन आᳰफसर, गवनᭅमᱶट आफ इि᭛डया/भारत सरकार, िमिन᭭ᮝी आफ
लेबर/᮰म मंᮢालय नई ᳰद᭨ली ने आदेश नं. एल-22012/45/2018-IR(CM-II) नई ᳰद᭨ली ᳰदनांक 25.10.2018 के
᳇ारा िववाद को, औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम 1947 (14/1947) के अंतगᭅत, ᮰म ᭠यायालय िबलासपुर को
अिधिनᳶणᭅयाथᭅ सौपा है, िजसका िनराकरण ᳰकया जा रहा है ।
2.
ᮧथम पᭃ कᳱ ओर से पेश ᭭टेटमᱶट आफ लेम का संिᭃ᳙ िववरण यह है ᳰक उसे बतौर जनरल मजदूर ि᳇तीय पᭃकार
के ᳇ारा आदेश ᮓमांक 8289 ᳰदनांक 31.03.1990 को िनयुिᲦ ᮧदान कᳱ गई थी । उᲦ िनयुिᲦ उसके िपता ᭭व.
ᳲचंताराम िपता चमᱨ के मेिडकल अनᳰफट होने के कारण, ᳲचंताराम कᳱ अनुसंशा तथा क᭥पनी के ᮧावधान के
अनुसार ᳰदया गया था । ᭭व. ᳲचंताराम िपता चमᱨ, एस.ई.सी.एल. मᱶ नौकरी कर रहा था तथा ᭭वा᭭᭝यगत कारण
से मेिडकल बोडᭅ कᳱ अनुसंशा ᳰदनांक 15.11.1989 के आधार पर ि᳇तीय पᭃकार के ᳇ारा आदेश ᳰदनांक
10.12.1989 को िच᭠ताराम को मेिडकल अनᳰफट ᳰकया गया । ᭭व. ᳲचंताराम के ᳇ारा मेिडकल अनᳰफट होने के
कारण एन.सी.ड᭣᭨यु.ए.-III के अंतगᭅत अपने आि᮰त पुᮢ ᮧथम पᭃकार गᱶदराम का नाम ᮧ᭭तािवत कर ᮧथम पᭃकार
के फोटो को चि᭭पत कर आवेदन पᮢ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया तथा उᲦ आवेदन को ᮧथम पᭃकार के सᭃम ᮧािधकारी सब
एᳯरया मैनेजर रजगामार तथा वᳯर᳧ काᳶमᭅक ᮧबंधक के ᳇ारा ᭭व. ᳲचंताराम एवं ᮧथम पᭃकार गᱶदराम कᳱ
उपि᭭थित मᱶ कᲅसᳲलंग/जांच कᳱ गई एवं पूछताछ करने के बाद ᮧमािणत ᳰकया गया था । ᳲचंताराम के ᳇ारा अपने
आवेदन के समथᭅन मᱶ कायᭅपािलक द᭛डािधकारी के समᭃ ᳰदनांक 12.01.1990 को शपथ पᮢ िन᭬पादन ᳰकया गया,
िजसमᱶ ᳲचंताराम ने अपने पुᮢ गᱶदराम ᮧथम पᭃकार का नाम ᮧ᭭तािवत ᳰकया था । उᲦ आवेदनᲂ के जांच उपरा᭠त
ि᳇तीय पᭃकार के सᭃम अिधकारी सब एᳯरया मैनेजर रजगामार के ᳇ारा अनुसंशा के साथ अपने पᮢ ᮓमांक 6827-
28 ᳰदनांक 17.02.1990 के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃकार कᳱ िनयुिᲦ हेतु ᮧेिषत कᳱ गई । ᮧथम पᭃकार 1990 से लगातार
ि᳇तीय पᭃकार के यहां कायᭅरत रहा । ᮧथम पᭃकार के िपता ᳲचंताराम कᳱ मृ᭜यु 24.10.2005 को हो गया था । इस
ᮧकार ᮧथम पᭃकार के साथ उसके िपता 15 वषᭅ तक रहे ।
3.
ᮧथम पᭃ ने आगे यह भी अिभवचन ᳰकया है ᳰक उसके मोह᭨ले मᱶ रहने वाले राजकुमार चौहान से ᳞िᲦगत दु᭫मनी
होने के कारण एक झूठा िशकायत राजकुमार के ᳇ारा 24.11.2015 को अपने नाम से तथा ᳰदनांक 27.11.2015 को
गᱶदराम के नाम से ᳰकया था । उᲦ िशकायत के आधार पर ि᳇तीय पᭃकार के ᳇ारा पᮢ ᮓमांक 1405 ᳰदनांक
3350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.11.2015 का आरोप पᮢ जारी ᳰकया गया । उᲦ आरोप पᮢ के आधार पर ि᳇तीय पᭃकार कᳱ ओर से जांच
अिधकारी ᮰ी ए.के. वमाᭅ कॉलरी मैनेजर के ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 23.12.2015 को ᮧथम जांच कायᭅवाही कᳱ गई । जांच
अिधकारी ने अपने जांच ᳯरपोटᭅ मᱶ, आरोप पᮢ मᱶ उ᭨लेिखत ᭭टᱶᳲडंग आडᭅर कᳱ धारा 26.1 एवं 26.9 का दोष िस᳃
होना पाना उ᭨लेिखत ᳰकया । जांच ᳯरपोटᭅ ᳰदनांक 25.01.2017 को ि᳇तीय पᭃकार के समᭃ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया
गया,िजसे ᭭वीकार करते ᱟए ᳰदनांक 27.01.2017 को ᮧथम पᭃकार को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त करने कᳱ अनुसंशा करते
ᱟए ᭃेᮢीय काᳶमᭅक ᮧबंधक कोरबा एᳯरया को ᮧेिषत ᳰकया गया । ᳰदनांक 27.01.2017 को ᮧथम पᭃकार कᳱ सेवा
समाि᳙ कᳱ अनुसंशा के प᳟ात ि᳇तीय पᭃ के जांच अिधकारी के ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 01.02.2017 को कारण बताᲐ
नोᳯटस जारी ᳰकया गया, जबᳰक सेवा समाि᳙ कᳱ अनुसंशा पूवᭅ मᱶ ही कᳱ जा चुकᳱ थी । उᲦ नोᳯटस का जवाब ᮧथम
पᭃ के ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 03.02.2017 को दे ᳰदया गया । उसके बाद ᮨेिबकेट करते ᱟए पुनः अनुसंशा पᮢ ᳰदनांक
06.02.2017 को ि᳇तीय पᭃकार ᳇ारा ᮧेिषत ᳰकया गया । ᳰदनांक 27.01.2017 एवं 06.02.2017 के अनुसंशा के
आधार पर ᭃेᮢीय काᳶमᭅक ᮧबंधक ने नोटशीट ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 के ᳇ारा सेवा बखाᭅ᭭तगी अनुसंशा को ᭭वीकृित
ᮧदान कᳱ गई । गᱶदराम के नाम पर तथाकिथत गᱶदराम के ᳇ारा िशकायत कᳱ गई थी, ᳰक᭠तु जांच मᱶ जांच अिधकारी
के समᭃ तथाकिथत गᱶदराम कभी भी उपि᭭थत नहᱭ ᱟआ । जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ ᮧथम पᭃकार को अपना पᭃ रखने
का अवसर नहᱭ ᳰदया गया, जो ᮧाकृितक ᭠याय िसा᭠त के िवपरीत है । अतः ᮧथम पᭃ का बखाᭅ᭭तगी आदेश ᳰदनांक
07.02.2017 को अवैध एवं शू᭠य घोिषत कर ᮧथम पᭃकार को 07.02.2017 से पुनः सेवा मᱶ बहाल कर लगातार
सेवा मानते ᱟए पूणᭅ वेतन ᳰदलाये जाने का िनवेदन ᳰकया गया ।
4.
ि᳇तीय पᭃ कᳱ ओर से ᭭टेटमᱶट आफ लेम का िवरोध करते ᱟए अपने जवाब दावा मᱶ यह अिभवचन ᳰकया गया ᳰक
ᮧथम पᭃ ᳇ारा ᮧ᭭तुत ᭭टेटमᱶट आफ लेम चलने योय नहᱭ है । ᮧथम पᭃकार को ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 को जांच
अिधकारी ने जांच कायᭅवाही को कुल 37 बैठकᲂ मे पूणᭅ कᳱ । जांच अिधकारी ᳇ारा जांच को पूणᭅ कर फाईल के साथ
जांच ᮧितवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया िजसमᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ पर लगाये गये आरोप पूणᭅतः िस पाये गये , तदोपरा᭠त ᮧथम
पᭃ को कारण बताᲐ नोᳯटस जारी ᳰकया गया । ᮧथम पᭃ का ᭭प᳥ीकरण ᳰदनांक03.02.2017को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ, िजसे
असंतोषजनक एवं त᭝यहीन पाया गया । ᮧकरण के सू᭯म अ᭟ययन के प᳟ात कदाचरण कᳱ गंभीरता को देखते ᱟए
सᭃम अिधकारी ᳇ारा ᮧमािणत ᭭थायी आदेश कᳱ धारा 27.1(h) के अंतगᭅत ᳰदये गये द᭛ड के ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुसार
ᮧथम पᭃ को क᭥पनी कᳱ सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकये जाने का द᭛ड अनुमोᳰदत ᳰकया गया । ᮧथम पᭃकार के ᳇ारा
बखाᭅ᭭तगी आदेश के प᳟ात िनयंᮢक अिधकारी के समᭃ ᮕे᭒युटी रािश के भुगतान हेतु आवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया, जो
सेवािनवृिᱫ के प᳟ात ही ᳰदया जाता है । िनयंᮢक अिधकारी के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃकार के पᭃ मᱶ ᳰदनांक 06.04.2018
को ᮕे᭒युटी रािश 7,38,659/- देने का आदेश पाᳯरत ᱟआ था, उसके प᳟ात उᲦ आदेश के िवᱨ᳃ अपीलीय अिधकारी
के समᭃ धारा 7(7) के तहत अपील ᮧ᭭तुत कᳱ गई, िजसमᱶ ᳰदनांक 13.05.2019 के आदेश ᳇ारा िनयंᮢक अिधकारी
के आदेश को यथावत रखा गया । ᮧथम पᭃकार एक तरफ बखाᭅ᭭तगी के आदेश के िवᱨ᳃ ᭠यायालय के समᭃ
औ᳒ोिगक िववाद के तहत आवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया तथा दूसरी तरफ उपादान कᳱ रािश के िलए आवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया,
िजसके अनुसार वह ᭭वयं उपादान लेने के प᳟ात वापस नौकरी मᱶ आने का अिधकारी नहᱭ है तथा वह ᭭वयं अपने
बखाᭅ᭭तगी को पूणᭅतः ᭭वीकार कर चुका है । ᮧथम पᭃ के िवᱨ᳃ िशकायत ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ ᳰक वह फजᱮ तरीके से नौकरी
ᮧा᳙ ᳰकया है, जो वा᭭तव मᱶ िच᭠ताराम का पुᮢ नहᱭ है, िजसके िलए उसे िविधवत आरोप पᮢ ᳰदया जाकर जांच
कायᭅवाही पूणᭅ कᳱ गई । जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ लगाये गये आरोप िस᳃ पाया गया और ᮧथम पᭃ के कृ᭜य कᳱ गंभीरता को
देखते ᱟए पᮢांक 0619 ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 ᳇ारा सेवा से िडसिमस ᳰकया जा चुका है । अतः ᮧथम पᭃकार का
᭭टेटमᱶट आफ लेम िनर᭭त ᳰकये जाने का िनवेदन ᳰकया ।
5.
उभय पᭃ के अिभवचनᲂ के आधार पर, ᮧकरण के समुिचत िनराकरण हेतु पूवᭅ पीठासीन अिधकारी ᳇ारा पृथक से
िन᳜िलिखत वाद ᮧ᳤ᲂ कᳱ िवरचना कᳱ गई, िजसका िनराकरण ᭠यायालय ᳇ारा सकारण िन᭬कषᭅ देते ᱟए िन᳜ांᳰकत
ᱨप से ᳰकया जा रहा है ।
ᮓ.
वाद ᮧ᳤
िन᭬कषᭅ
1.
या ᮧथम पᭃ का बखाᭅ᭭तगी आदेश ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 अवैध एवं शू᭠य
घोिषत ᳰकये जाने योय है ?
"हᱼ"
2
या ᮧथम पᭃ स᭥पूणᭅ िपछला िहतलाभ सिहत पूवᭅ पद पर पुनः ᭭थािपत होने
कᳱ पाᮢता रखता है ?
"अंशत ᮧमािणत"
ᮧथम पᭃ एक चौथाई वेतन ᮧा᳙
करने का अिधकारी है
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3351
3
या ᮧथम पᭃ के जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ ᮧाकृितक ᭠याय के िस᳃ा᭠त का पालन
ᳰकया गया है ?
"नहᱭ"
4
सहायता एवं ᳞य ?
"अिधिनणᭅय कᳱ कंिडका-30 के
अनुसार"
6.
ᮧथम पᭃ ने अपने समथᭅन मᱶ ᭭वयं ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम तथा ि᳇तीय पᭃ कᳱ ओर से ᮰ीमती अमीता चौहान का सा᭯य
᭠यायालय के समᭃ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया है । इसी तरह ᮧथम पᭃ ने अपने समथᭅन मᱶ ᮧदशᭅ पी-1 से लेकर ᮧदशᭅ पी-52
तक के द᭭तावेज ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया है । ि᳇तीय पᭃ कᳱ ओर से अपने समथᭅन मᱶ ᮧदशᭅ डी-1 से ᮧदशᭅ पी-50 तक के
द᭭तावेज ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया है ।
वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-1 का िन᭬कषᭅ
7.
उᲦ वाद ᮧ᳤ के संबंध मᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम (ᮧ.प.सा.ᮓ.-1) ने अपने शपथ पᮢीय सा᭯य मᱶ कथन ᳰकया है ᳰक उसे
जनरल मजदूर के ᱨप मᱶ ि᳇तीय पᭃ के आदेश ᮓ 8289 ᳰदनांक 31.03.1990 के ᳇ारा िनयुिᲦ ᮧदान कᳱ गई थी,
तब से सेवा समाि᳙ ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 तक लगातार कायᭅ ᳰकया है । उसकᳱ िनयुिᲦ उसके िपता ᭭वगᱮय
िच᭠ताराम के मेिडकल अनᳰफट होने के कारण िच᭠ताराम के अनुसंशा एवं क᭥पनी के ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुसार ᳰकया गया
है । उसके िपता ᭭व. िच᭠ताराम एस.ई.सी.एल. मᱶ नौकरी कर रहे थे, मेिडकल बोडᭅ कᳱ अनुसंशा ᳰदनांक
15.11.1989 के आधार पर ᳰदनांक 10.12.1989 को िच᭠ताराम को मेिडकल अनᳰफट ᳰकया गया था । उसके िपता
᳇ारा एन.सी.ड᭣᭨यु.ए-iii के अंतगᭅत अपने आि᮰त पुᮢ अथाᭅत उसका नाम फोटो लगाकर ᮧ᭭तािवत कर आवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत
ᳰकया था । उᲦ आवेदन पᮢ के समथᭅन मᱶ कायᭅपालक दंडािधकारी के समᭃ ᳰदनांक 12.01.1990 को शपथ पᮢ
िन᭬पाᳰदत ᳰकया गया, िजसमᱶ उसके िपता ने उसका नाम ᮧ᭭तािवत ᳰकया था । उसके िपता कᳱ अनुसंशा के आधार
पर सब एᳯरया मैनेजर राजगामार ने अनुसंशा सिहत पᮢ ᮓमांक 6827-28 ᳰदनांक 17.02.1990 के ᳇ारा उसे
िनयुिᲦ दी गई थी ।
8.
ᮧथम पᭃ ने आगे यह भी अिभवचन ᳰकया है ᳰक उसके िवᱨ᳃ मोह᭨ले मᱶ रहने वाले राजकुमार चौहान ᳇ारा झूठी
िशकायत कᳱ गई थी, िजसके आधार पर आरोप पᮢ जारी ᳰकया गया है । उसके िवᱨ᳃ ᭭तरीय ᭭थायी आदेश धारा
26.1 एवं 23.9 को ᮧमािणत मानकर धारा 27.1(h) के ᳇ारा सेवा समाि᳙ का आदेश ᳰदया गया है । ᮧथम पᭃ ने
अपने समथᭅन मᱶ अपने िनयुिᲦ पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-1, आᳰफस आडᭅर को ᮧदशᭅ पी-2, ᮧपोजल आवेदन को ᮧदशᭅ पी-3
एवं पी-4, िच᭠ताराम ᳰदये गये शपथ पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-5, िच᭠ताराम के सेवा अिभलेख को ᮧदशᭅ पी-6, िच᭠ताराम
᳇ारा भरे गये आ᭡शन फामᭅ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-7, सब एᳯरया मैनेजर के पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-8, राजकुमार चौहान के ᳇ारा
ᳰकये गये िशकायत को ᮧदशᭅ पी-9, गᱶदराम ᳇ारा ᳰकये गये िशकायत को ᮧदशᭅ पी-10, आरोप पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-11,
जांच कायᭅवाही के द᭭तावेज को ᮧदशᭅ पी-12, जांच ᮧितवेदन को ᮧदशᭅ पी-13, िवभागीय जांच कᳱ 27वᱭ बैठक मᱶ
आरोपी पᭃ ᳇ारा पेश एनेजर-1 से 37 को ᮧदशᭅ पी-14, िवभागीय जांच कᳱ 28वᱭ बैठक को ᮧदशᭅ पी-15, मेिडकल
स᳷टᭅᳰफकेट को ᮧदशᭅ पी-16, सूचना के अिधकार के तहत ᮧा᳙ द᭭तावेज को ᮧदशᭅ पी-17, िवभागीय नोटशीट को
ᮧदशᭅ पी-18, िवभागीय जांच कᳱ कायᭅवाही ᳯरपोटᭅ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-19, सेवा बखाᭅ᭭तगी आदेश को ᮧदशᭅ पी-20,
िच᭠ताराम, बहरतीन एवं रीना कुमारी के ᳇ारा गᱶदराम के िवᱨ᳃ भरण पोषण हेतु ᮧ᭭तुत आवेदन पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-
21, गᱶदराम को ᳰदये गये नोᳯटस को ᮧदशᭅ पी-22, ᭠याियक द᭛डािधकारी ᮧथम ᮰ेणी कोरबा के आडᭅरशीट को ᮧदशᭅ
पी-23, िच᭠ताराम के बयान को ᮧदशᭅ पी-24, बहतरीन बाई का धारा 125 दं.ᮧ.सं. के तहत ᳰदये गये बयान को
ᮧदशᭅ पी-25 , ᭠यायालय ᭠याियक द᭛डािधकारी ᮧथम ᮰ेणी कोरबा ᳇ारा जारी भरण पोषण के आदेश को ᮧदशᭅ पी-
26, िच᭠ताराम एवं बहतरीन बाई के ᳇ारा ᳰदये गये वकालतनामा को ᮧदशᭅ पी-27, गᱶदराम कᳱ ओर से ᮧ᭭तुत
आवेदन को ᮧदशᭅ पी-28, शिशधर ि᳇वेदी उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक के बयान को ᮧदशᭅ पी-29, संजय कुमार ᳲशंदे
एस.ई.सीएल अिधकारी के बयान को ᮧदशᭅ पी-30, अजय जोशी उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक के बयान को ᮧदशᭅ पी-31,
उपᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक रजगामार ᳇ारा गᱶदराम के िनयुिᲦ के संबंध मᱶ द᭭तावेज चौकᳱ ᮧभारी रजगामार को दी गई
जानकारी ᮧदशᭅ पी-32, राजकुमार चौहान ᳇ारा ᳰकये गये िशकायत को ᮧदशᭅ पी-33, अंितम ᮧितवेदन को ᮧदशᭅ पी-
34, ᮧथम सूचना ᮧितवेदन को ᮧदशᭅ पी-35, गᱶदराम के पेन काडᭅ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-36, ᮟायᳲवंग लायसᱶस को ᮧदशᭅ पी-
37, मतदाता पᳯरचय पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-38, आधार काडᭅ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-39 के ᱨप मᱶ पेश ᳰकया है ।
3352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
एस.ई.सी.एल. ᳇ारा जारी आई काडᭅ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-40, 10वᱭ परीᭃा मᱶ सि᭥मिलत होने हेतु ᳰदये गये आवेदन को
ᮧदशᭅ पी-41, छ.ग. रा᭔य ओपन ᭭कूल के ᮧमाण पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-42, ᭭थायी सामािजक जाित ᮧमाण पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ
पी-43, बहतरीन बाई के िनवाᭅचन पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-44, बहरतीन बाई के आधार काडᭅ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-45, बहरतीन
बाई के मृ᭜यु ᮧमाण पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-46, बहरतीन बाई के शोक पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-47, बहरतीन बाई के शपथ पᮢ को
ᮧदशᭅ पी-48, गंगाराम चौहान के शपथ पᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-49, नोटरी ᳇ारा जारी रसीद को ᮧदशᭅ पी-50, आपरािधक
ᮧकरण ᮓमांक 436/2015 के आदेश एवं अ᭠य ᮧपᮢ को ᮧदशᭅ पी-51, दाि᭛डक अपील ᮓमांक 3/20 िनणᭅय ᳰदनांक
22.01.2021 कᳱ ᮧमािणत ᮧितिलिप को ᮧदशᭅ पी-52 के ᱨप मᱶ पेश ᳰकया गया है ।
10. ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ गᱶदराम (ᮧथम पᭃ) ने यह कथन ᳰकया है ᳰक उसका पूरा नाम गᱶदराम आ. ᭭व. िच᭠ताराम है । जांच
के दौरान मुझे ᮧितिनिध रखने का मौका एस.ई.सी.एल. के ᳇ारा ᳰदया गया था । ᳰदनांक 11.07.2016 को उसके
᳇ारा सहकमᱮ बदलने के िलए िनवेदन ᳰकया गया था, िजसे जांच अिधकारी के ᳇ारा ᭭वीकार ᳰकया गया । सेवा
समाि᳙ कᳱ सूचना देने से पहले उसकᳱ सेवा समाि᳙ कᳱ अनुसंशा कर दी गई ।
11. ि᳇तीय पᭃ कᳱ ओर से उपि᭭थत साᭃी अमीता चौहान (ि᳇.प.सा.ᮓ.-1) ने अपने शपथ पᮢीय बयान मᱶ यह कथन कᳱ
है ᳰक आदेश ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 के िवᱨ᳃ क᭥पनी के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃ को आरोप पᮢ ᳰदनांक 26.11.2015 जारी
ᳰकया गया था, िजसका ᮧथम पᭃ ᳇ारा ᭭प᳥ीकरण ᳰदनांक 30.11.2015 को ᳰदया गया, जो संतोषᮧद नहᱭ पाये
जाने से िवभागीय जांच हेतु ᳰदनांक 03.12.2015 को आदेश जारी ᳰकया गया । ᮧकरण के सम᭭त द᭭तावेज एवं जांच
कायᭅवाही के अ᭟ययन के प᳟ात कदाचरण कᳱ गंभीरता को देखते ᱟए सᭃम अिधकारी ᳇ारा ᮧमािणत ᭭थायी आदेश
कᳱ धारा एवं ᳰदये गये द᭛ड ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुसार ᮧथम पᭃ को क᭥पनी कᳱ सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकये जाने का द᭛ड
अनुमोᳰदत ᳰकया गया है । जांच अिधकारी के ᳇ारा जांच कायᭅवाही को पूणᭅ कर जांच ᮧितवेदन ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया,
िजसमᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ के उपर लगाये गये आरोप पूणᭅतः िस᳃ पाये गये तदुपरा᭠त ᮧथम पᭃ को कारण बताᲐ नोᳯटस
ᳰदया गया, िजसका जवाब ᮧथम पᭃ के ᳇ारा ᳰदया गया । सम᭭त ᮧकरण के अ᭟ययन के प᳟ात कदाचरण कᳱ
गंभीरता को देखते ᱟए सᭃम अिधकारी के ᳇ारा ᮧमािणत ᭭थायी आदेश कᳱ धारा 27.1(h) के अंतगᭅत सेवा से
बखाᭅ᭭त करना ᳰदये गये ᮧावधानᲂ के अनुसार क᭥पनी कᳱ सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकये जाने का द᭛ड अनुमोᳰदत ᳰकया गया
है ।
12. ि᳇तीय पᭃ कᳱ ओर से अपने पᭃ समथᭅन मᱶ उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक रजगामार उपᭃे᳇ ᳇ारा गᱶदराम आ. िच᭠ताराम को
ᳰदया गया आरोप पᮢ ᮧदशᭅ डी-1, िशकायतकताᭅ ᳇ारा िशकायत के संबंध मᱶ दी गई द᭭तावेज ᮧदशᭅ डी-2, गᱶदराम
के ᳇ारा उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक को द᭭तावेजᲂ कᳱ ᮧित उपल᭣ध कराये जाने बाबत ᳰदया गया आवेदन ᮧदशᭅ डी-3,
िवभागीय जांच आदेश ᮧदशᭅ डी-4, गᱶदराम के ᳇ारा जांच अिधकारी को सहकमᱮ रखने हेतु ᳰदया गया आवेदन ᮧदशᭅ
डी-5, िवभागीय जांच कायᭅवाही एवं सािᭃयᲂ के कथन ᮧदशᭅ डी-6 से लेकर ᮧदशᭅ डी-42, अंितम सूचना ᮧदशᭅ डी-
43, एवं ᮧदशᭅ डी-44, जांच ᮧितवेदन ᮧदशᭅ डी-45, फजᱮ िनयुिᲦ ᮧकरण कᳱ िव᭭तृत जानकारी ᮧदशᭅ डी-46,
क᭥पनी के ᮧमािणत ᭭थायी आदेश के उ᭨लंघन के िलए ᳰदया गया नोᳯटस ᮧदशᭅ डी-47, गᱶदराम का◌े ᳰदया गया
कारण बताᲐ नोᳯटस ᮧदशᭅ डी-48, गᱶदराम के ᳇ारा कारण बताᲐ नोᳯटस का ᳰदया गया जवाब ᮧदशᭅ डी-49, एवं
सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭तगी आदेश ᮧदशᭅ डी-50 पेश ᳰकया गया है ।
13. ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ इस ि᳇तीय पᭃ साᭃी अमीता चौहान ने यह ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक वह गᱶदराम के िवᱨ᳃ कᳱ गई ᳰकसी
भी कायᭅवाही मᱶ शािमल नहᱭ ᱟई है । इस साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक उसने ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम का सᳶवᭅस
ᳯरकाडᭅ भी देखी है, गᱶदराम कᳱ िनयुिᲦ उसके िपताजी के मेिडकल अनफᳱट के कारण उनके ᭭थान पर ᱟई थी । साᭃी
ने यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ᳰकसी कमᭅचारी का मेिडकल अनफᳱट होने पर उस कमᭅचारी के कहने के आधार पर और
उसके आवेदन अथवा शपथ पᮢ के आधार पर उसकᳱ िनयुिᲦ िवभाग मᱶ कᳱ जाती है । यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक
िनयुिᲦ के पूवᭅ िवभाग ᳇ारा सभी द᭭तावेजᲂ कᳱ जांच कᳱ जाती है, उसके उपरा᭠त ही िनयुिᲦ ᮧदान कᳱ जाती है ।
ᮧदशᭅ पी-2 के ᳇ारा िच᭠ताराम को मेिडकल अनफᳱट ᳰकया गया था, ᮧदशᭅ पी-3 का िन᭬पादन गᱶदराम के िपता
िच᭠ताराम ᳇ारा ᳰकया गया था तथा इसकᳱ जांच क᭥पनी के अिधकाᳯरयᲂ ᳇ारा ᳰकये जाने के प᳟ात उसकᳱ अनुसंशा
कᳱ गई थी । ᮧदशᭅ पी-5 िच᭠ताराम ᳇ारा िन᭬पाᳰदत शपथ पᮢ है, िजसमᱶ उ᭠हᲂने अपने ᭭थान पर आवेदन के साथ
ᮧदशᭅ पी-4 मे उ᭨लेिखत गᱶदराम के फोटो सिहत उसे िनयुिᲦ ᳰदये जाने हेतु आवेदन पᮢ के समथᭅन मᱶ शपथ पᮢ
क᭥पनी मᱶ ᳰदया गया था । ᮧदशᭅ पी-6 जो िच᭠ताराम का सᳶवᭅस बुक है, उसमᱶ िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ बहतरीन बाई, पुᮢ
गᱶदराम, पुᮢी मीना बाई, िपता चमᱨ एवं माता का नाम सुंदर बाई दजᭅ है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-7 के आधार पर िच᭠ताराम ने
क᭥पनी ᳇ारा ᳰदये जाने वाले एल.टी.सी. का लाभ ᭭वयं पि᳀ बहतरीन बाई, पुᮢ गᱶदराम, पुᮢी मीना बाई के नाम से
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3353
लेता रहा है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-8 के ᳇ारा िच᭠ताराम ᳇ारा ᳰदये गये सम᭭त द᭭तावेज और सᳶवᭅस ᳯरकाडᭅ कᳱ जांच करने के
प᳟ात उसकᳱ सब-कॉपी भेजकर गᱶदराम कᳱ िनयुिᲦ के िलए अनुसंशा ᳰकया गया था ।
14. ि᳇तीय पᭃ के साᭃी अमीता चौहान ने अपने ᮧितपरीᭃण कᳱ कंिडका-30 मᱶ यह ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक गᱶदराम ने ऐसा
कोई द᭭तावेज नहᱭ ᳰदया, िजससे यह दᳶशᭅत हो सके ᳰक वह फजᱮ ᳞िᲦ है । इस साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक
आन लाईन िनकाले जाने के बाद भी गᱶदराम का वोटर आई.डी. काडᭅ ᮧकरण मᱶ पेश नहᱭ कᳱ गई है । ᮧितपरीᭃण कᳱ
कंिडका-33 मᱶ इस साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭वीकार ᳰकया है ᳰक जांच कमेटी गठन के आदेश का कोई द᭭तावेज उसके ᳇ारा
पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ ᳰक ऐसा कोई द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ है, िजसमᱶ गᱶदराम को आरोप पᮢ
ᳰदनांक 11.09.2015 जारी ᳰकया गया था, िजसके आधार पर गᱶदराम को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकया गया है ।
ᮧितपरीᭃण कᳱ कंिडका-37 मᱶ यह ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक क᭥पनी मᱶ उपल᭣ध द᭭तावेजᲂ मᱶ कहᱭ भी सुमित बाई,
िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है, ऐसा उ᭨लेख नहᱭ है । ᮧदशᭅ डी-45 मᱶ ऐसा उ᭨लेख नहᱭ है ᳰक गᱶदराम ᳇ारा िनयोᲦा के
᳞ापार एवं स᭥पिᱫ के साथ चोरी, धोखाधड़ी या बेईमानी कᳱ गई है साथ ही ऐसा कोई द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ है, िजसमᱶ
गᱶदराम ᳇ारा अपने रोजगार के संबंध मᱶ नाम, उ᮫ एवं िपता के नाम का गलत सूचना ᳰदया हो । ᮧबंधन ᳇ारा सुमित
बाई िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है, ऐसा कोई द᭭तावेज ᭠यायालय मᱶ पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । ᮧदशᭅ डी-21 मᱶ िशकायतकताᭅ
राजकुमार ने कोई भी द᭭तावेज गᱶदराम के िवᱨ᳃ पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया था । बखाᭅ᭭त करने वाले सब एᳯरया मैनेजर
शिशधर ि᳇वेदी के ᳇ारा कोरबा ᭠यायालय के समᭃ आपरािधक ᮧकरण ᮓमांक 2520/2016 शासन िवᱨ᳃ कौशल
के कंिडका-4 मᱶ कथन ᳰकया है ᳰक एसईसीएल मᱶ ᳰकसी भी ᳞िᲦ के मेिडकल अनफᳱट होने पर उसके ᳇ारा ᮧ᭭तुत
द᭭तावेजᲂ को सही पाये जाने पर उसके ᭭थान पर उसके पुᮢ को नौकरी ᮧदान कᳱ जाती है, यह कथन ᮧदशᭅ पी-29 मᱶ
उ᭨लेिखत है । ि᳇तीय पᭃ साᭃी ने ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ यह ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक गᱶदराम को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰदनांक
26.11.2015 के आधार पर नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है बि᭨क चाजᭅशीट ᮓमांक 3352 ᳰदनांक 11.09.2015 के आधार पर
ᳰकया गया है और उᲦ द᭭तावेज उनके पास नहᱭ है और न ही ᭠यायालय मᱶ पेश ᳰकया है । ि᳇तीय पᭃ साᭃी ने अपने
ᮧितपरीᭃण कᳱ कंिडका-55 मᱶ यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक राजकुमार ᳇ारा पेश िशकायत फजᱮ है, इसिलए िशकायत
कᳱ मूल ᮧित एवं छायाᮧित पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है ।
15. ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत सा᭯य एवं द᭭तावेजᲂ का गंभीरतापूवᭅक अवलोकन ᳰकया गया । ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेज ᮧदशᭅ
पी-6 िच᭠ताराम का सेवा अिभलेख के अवलोकन से दᳶशᭅत होता है ᳰक िच᭠ताराम ने उᲦ सेवा अिभलेख मᱶ बहतरीन
बाई, गᱶदराम, मीना बाई, चमᱨ एवं सु᭠दर बाई का नाम पᳯरवार के सद᭭यᲂ के ᱨप मᱶ नािमत ᳰकया है, िजस पर
िच᭠ताराम के अंगूठा िनशान है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-7 िच᭠ताराम ᳇ारा क᭥पनी के समᭃ ᳰदया गया आपशन फामᭅ िजसमᱶ भी
िच᭠ताराम ने बहतरीन बाई को अपना पि᳀, गᱶदराम को अपना पुᮢ एवं मीना बाई को अपना पुᮢी होना उ᭨लेिखत
ᳰकया है, इस पर भी िच᭠ताराम के अंगूठा िनशान है । इस ᮧकार उपरोᲦ द᭭तावेजᲂ मᱶ िच᭠ताराम ने अपनी सेवा
अिभलेख एवं आपशन फामᭅ मᱶ अपने पुᮢ के ᱨप मᱶ गᱶदराम का नाम उ᭨लेिखत ᳰकया है, िजससे यह दᳶशᭅत हो रहा है
ᳰक गᱶदराम नामक ᳞िᲦ िच᭠ताराम का पुᮢ है । इसी ᮧकार ᮧदशᭅ पी-15 जो ᮰ीमती रीना साᱠ का िवभागीय जांच
कायᭅवाही कᳱ 28वी बैठक ᳰदनांक 28.12.2016 को िलया गया कथन है, िजसमᱶ ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-2 मᱶ रीना बाई ने अपनी
माता का नाम सुमित बाई होना बताई है तथा िपताजी का नाम िच᭠ताराम बताई है, पर᭠तु ᮰ीमती रीना साᱠ के
᳇ारा ऐसा कोई भी द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है, िजससे यह सािबत हो ᳰक सुमित बाई िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है, बि᭨क
इसके िवपरीत ᮧदशᭅ पी-6 एवं ᮧदशᭅ पी-7 मᱶ िच᭠ताराम ने अपनी सेवा अिभलेख एवं आपशन फामᭅ मᱶ अपनी पि᳀ का
नाम बहतरीन बाई होना बताया है िजसे एस.ई.सी.एल. क᭥पनी ᳇ारा सील एवं ह᭭ताᭃर से अिभᮧमािणत भी ᳰकया
गया है, उᲦ द᭭तावेजᲂ मᱶ कहᱭ पर भी िच᭠ताराम के पि᳀ के ᱨप मᱶ सुमित बाई के नाम का उ᭨लेख नहᱭ है । रीना
बाई ने अपने ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-6 के उᱫर मᱶ गᱶदराम को नहᱭ जानना बताई है, पर᭠तु ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-11 के उᱫर मᱶ िच᭠ताराम
को ही अपना िपता बताई है । इस ᮧकार ᮰ीमती रीना बाई के िवभागीय कथन मᱶ भी िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ के ᱨप मᱶ
बहतरीन बाई का नाम उ᭨लेिखत है न ᳰक सुमित बाई का । ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ ᮰ीमती रीना बाई ᳇ारा िवभागीय
कायᭅवाही मᱶ पेश ᳰकये गये कथन एवं ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेजᲂ से यह कहᱭ भी ᮧमािणत नहᱭ होता है ᳰक
िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ का नाम सुमित बाई है जबᳰक यह ᮧमािणत हो रहा है ᳰक िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ का नाम बहतरीन
बाई है और उनके सेवा अिभलेख मᱶ गᱶदराम का नाम उ᭨लेिखत है । ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेज ᮧदशᭅ पी-42 जो
गᱶदराम का छ.ग. रा᭔य ओपन ᭭कूल रायपुर का हाई᭭कूल स᳷टᭅᳰफकेट परीᭃा मई 2014 है, इसमᱶ भी उनके िपता का
नाम िच᭠ताराम तथा माता का नाम बहतरीन बाई उ᭨लेिखत है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-43 ᭭थायी सामािजक ᮧि᭭थित ᮧमाण पᮢ
मᱶ भी गᱶदराम िपता िच᭠ताराम उ᭨लेिखत है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-46 छᱫीसगढ़ शासन, आᳶथᭅक एवं सांियकᳱ संचालनालय
᳇ारा जारी बहतरीन बाई के मृ᭜यु ᮧमाण पᮢ मᱶ पित का नाम िच᭠ताराम उ᭨लेिखत है । ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ यह िवशेष
3354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ᱨप से ᭭प᳥ होता है ᳰक गᱶदराम के ᳇ारा पेश ᳰकये गये सभी द᭭तावेजᲂ मᱶ उनके िपता का नाम िच᭠ताराम तथा माता
का नाम बहतरीन बाई उ᭨लेिखत है, िजसका समथᭅन ि᳇तीय पᭃ के साᭃी अमीता चौहान के ᳇ारा ᭭वीकार कर
ᳰकया गया है ᳰक उसने ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम का सᳶवᭅस ᳯरकाडᭅ भी देखी है, गᱶदराम कᳱ िनयुिᲦ उसके िपताजी के
मेिडकल अनफᳱट के कारण उनके ᭭थान पर ᱟई थी । ᮧदशᭅ पी-6 जो िच᭠ताराम का सᳶवᭅस बुक है, उसमᱶ िच᭠ताराम
कᳱ पि᳀ बहतरीन बाई, पुᮢ गᱶदराम, पुᮢी मीना बाई, िपता चमᱨ एवं माता का नाम सुंदर बाई दजᭅ है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-7
के आधार पर िच᭠ताराम ने क᭥पनी ᳇ारा ᳰदये जाने वाले एल.टी.सी. का लाभ ᭭वयं पि᳀ बहतरीन बाई, पुᮢ गᱶदराम,
पुᮢी मीना बाई के नाम से लेता रहा है ।
16. इसी ᮧकार ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेज ᮧदशᭅ डी-2 मᱶ उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक ᳇ारा िशकायत के संबंध मᱶ
द᭭तावेज कᳱ मांग कᳱ गई है पर᭠तु उᲦ द᭭तावेज गᱶदराम को ᳰदये जाने के संबंध मᱶ या द᭭तावेज उसे ᮧा᳙ हो जाने के
संबंध मᱶ पावती अथवा अिभ᭭वीकृित पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । ᭭वयं गᱶदराम ने ᮧदशᭅ डी-3 मᱶ उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक को
द᭭तावेजᲂ के अभाव मᱶ संदᳶभᭅत पᮢ का युिᲦयुᲦ ᱨप से जवाब ᮧ᭭तुत करना संभव नहᱭ होना बताते ᱟए आवेदन
पेश ᳰकया गया है, इसके उपरा᭠त ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा उᲦ द᭭तावेज ᮧथम पᭃ् को ᮧदान ᳰकये गये हᱹ, त᭜सबंध मᱶ भी
कोई द᭭तावेज या ᮧमाण पेश नहᱭ ᳰकये हᱹ । ᮧदशᭅ डी-21 मᱶ िशकायतकताᭅ राजकुमार चौहान ने िवभागीय जांच कᳱ
कायᭅवाही 16 वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 21.07.2016 को कथन ᳰकया है ᳰक िच᭠ताराम चौहान िपता चमᱨ के छोटे भाई
पुनीराम िपता चमᱨ ने अपने बडे लडके कौसल कुमार चौहान को गᱶदराम िपता िच᭠ताराम के नाम से एस.ई.सी.एल.
मᱶ नौकरी ᮧदान कराई थी । पुनीराम िपता चमᱨ के सᳶवᭅस ᳯरकाडᭅ मᱶ कौसल चौहान का नाम दजᭅ है । शासकᳱय पूवᭅ
मा᭟यिमक शाला रजगामार मᱶ कौसल चौहान िपता पुनीराम का नाम दजᭅ है । िशकायतकताᭅ ने ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम को
पुनीराम का लडका कौसल चौहान होना बताया है। पर᭠तु इस साᭃी ने गᱶदराम को कौसल चौहान होना एवं पुनीराम
के लडके होने के संबंध मᱶ कोई भी द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है । कोई ऐसा भी द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है िजसमᱶ
कौसल चौहान, पुनीराम का लडका होना दᳶशᭅत हो । िशकायतकताᭅ ने फजᱮ द᭭तावेज बनाकर कौसल चौहान को
गᱶदराम और पुनीराम को िच᭠ताराम ᳰकया जाना बता रहा है, पर᭠तु जब िच᭠ताराम एस.ई.सी.एल. मᱶ िवगत कई
वषᲄ से नौकरी कर रहा है और एस.ई.सी.एल. के अिधकाᳯरयᲂ के अधीन नौकरी कर रहा है तो ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ
पुनीराम फजᱮ द᭭तावेज तैयार करके अपना नाम िच᭠ताराम कैसे मजᭅ करवा सकता है साथ ही साथ फजᱮ द᭭तावेज
तैयार कर कौसल कुमार चौहान के ᭭थान पर ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम का नाम कैसे जोडवा सकता है और तो और
िच᭠ताराम के ᳇ारा एस.ई.सी.एल. के अिधकाᳯरयᲂ के समᭃ ᳰदये गये आपशन फामᭅ मᱶ भी गᱶदराम का नाम उ᭨लेिखत
कैसे हो सकता है ।
17. इस संबंध मᱶ मीना बाई के कथन का अवलोकन ᳰकया गया । मीना ने अपने जांच कायᭅवाही के कथन मᱶ बताई है ᳰक
वह िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पुᮢी है, उसके िपता जी बीमारी कᳱ वजह से नौकरी छोड चुका था । उसका भाई गᱶदराम (पागल)
हो करके घर छोड कर भाग गया था । साᭃी का यह कथन कᳱ उसका भाई गᱶदराम पागल होकर घर छोड कर भाग
गया था, इस संबंध मᱶ इस साᭃी के ᳇ारा या उनके घर वालᲂ के ᳇ारा गᱶदराम के पागल होने और घर छोड कर भाग
जाने के संबंध मᱶ ᳰकसी पुिलस थाना मᱶ गᱶदराम के लापता होने कᳱ ᳯरपोटᭅ करवाई गई हो या ᳰकसी समाचार पᮢ मᱶ
गुमशुदगी िव᭄ि᳙ ᮧकािशत कराई गई हो, इस संबंध मᱶ भी कोई द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । ᮧ᳤ -5 के उᱫर मᱶ
इस साᭃी ने बताया है ᳰक शपथ पᮢ मᱶ जो ह᭭ताᭃर हᱹ वह उसके नहᱭ है , ᮧ᳤-6 के उᱫर मᱶ बताई है ᳰक वह नोटरी
के पास नहᱭ गई है । इस ᮧकार साᭃी के ᳇ारा शपथ पᮢ पेश करना, और नोटरी के समᭃ शपथ पᮢ मᱶ ह᭭ताᭃर नहᱭ
करना बताया गया है । इस साᭃी ने भी नोटरी के समᭃ गलत शपथ पᮢ बनाये जाने के संबंध मᱶ भी िशकायत ᳰकये
जाने का द᭭तावेज ᮧ᭭तुत नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है ।
18. ᮧदशᭅ डी-30 िवभागीय जांच कायᭅवाही (ᳰदनांक 06.12.2016) 25वᱭ बैठक मᱶ ᮰ीमित सुमित बाई ᳇ारा ᳰदये गये
बयान का अवलोकन ᳰकया गया, पर᭠तु सुमित बाई ने िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ होने के संबंध मᱶ ᳰकसी भी ᮧकार का
द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है, िजसमᱶ साᭃी सुमित िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है, दᳶशᭅत होता हो । इसके िवपरीत िच᭠ताराम
के सेवा अिभलेख मᱶ एवं आपशन फामᭅ मᱶ उनकᳱ पि᳀ का नाम बहतरीन बाई अंᳰकत होना ᭭प᳥ दᳶशᭅत है ।
19. अब ᮧ᳤ यह उठता है ᳰक िशकायतकताᭅ राजकुमार चौहान िपता सावनसाय चौहान के िशकायत ᮧदशᭅ पी-9 के साथ
गᱶदराम िपता ᭭व्. िच᭠ताराम के ᳇ारा भी एक िशकायत ᮧदशᭅ पी-10 के ᱨप मᱶ पेश ᳰकया गया है, पर᭠तु िवभागीय
जांच मᱶ ᮰ीमती रीना बाई, मीना बाई एवं सुमित के ᳇ारा यह कथन ᳰक वा᭭तिवक गᱶदराम िपछले कई वषᭅ पहले
पागल होकर घर छोड कर कहᱭ चला गया है तो ᳰफर िशकायतकताᭅ राजकुमार के साथ वा᭭तिवक गᱶदराम ᳇ारा
िशकायत ᳰकया जाना िव᳡सनीय ᮧतीत नहᱭ होता है और यᳰद वा᭭तिवक गᱶदराम ᳇ारा िशकायत कᳱ गई है तो
उनका िवभागीय कायᭅवाही मᱶ कथन यᲂ दजᭅ नहᱭ कराया गया है । िशकायतकताᭅ के ᳇ारा कौसल चौहान (ᮧथम पᭃ
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3355
गᱶदराम) के पूवᭅ मा᭟यम शाला का भी स᳷टᭅᳰफकेट या परीᭃा ᮧमाण पᮢ पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है, िजससे यह सािबत
होता ᳰक कौसल चौहान ᳇ारा फजᱮ द᭭तावेज तैयार कर, गᱶदराम के नाम से एसईसीएल मᱶ नौकरी ᳰकया जा रहा है ।
िशकायतकताᭅ के ᳇ारा कौसल का िनवाᭅचन आयोग का ᳯरकाडᭅ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया जाना बताया जा रहा है पर᭠तु उसका
द᭭तावेज ᮧकरण मᱶ पेश कर सा᭯य के मा᭟यम से सािबत नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेज ᮧदशᭅ पी-6
जो बहतरीन बाई का मृ᭜यु ᮧमाण पᮢ है, िजसमᱶ उसकᳱ मृ᭜यु ितिथ 08.10.2019 अंᳰकत है उसमᱶ उसके पित का
नाम िच᭠तराम चौहान अंᳰकत है । ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा अथवा िशकायतकताᭅ के ᳇ारा बहतरीन बाई का मृ᭜यु के पूवᭅ
जब वह जीिवत थी, तब िवभागीय जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ बहतरीन बाई का सा᭯य यᲂ लेखब᳃ नहᱭ कराया गया,
िजससे यह ᭭प᳥ हो जाता ᳰक बहतरीन बाई ही िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है अथवा सुमित बाई िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है ।
पर᭠तु सा᭯य के अभाव मᱶ ि᳇तीय पᭃ के िवभागीय जांच मᱶ िलये गये सािᭃयᲂ के कथन कᳱ पुि᳥ नहᱭ होती है ᳰक
कौसल चौहान ही गᱶदराम चौहान है तथा उनके ᳇ारा फजᱮ द᭭तावेज तैयार कर एस.ई.सी.एल. मᱶ िच᭠ताराम के
अनफᳱट होने पर उनके ᭭थान पर नौकरी ᳰकया जा रहा है ।
20. ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत ᮧदशᭅ पी-40 आई.डी. काडᭅ जो एस.ई.सी.एल. ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 28.02.2015 को जारी ᳰकया गया है,
उᲦ आई.डी. काडᭅ मᱶ गᱶदराम (ᮧथम पᭃ) का फोटो चि᭭पत है तथा उसके ह᭭ताᭃर है और िपता का नाम ᭭व.
ᳲचंताराम उ᭨लेिखत है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-38 भारत िनवाᭅचन आयोग का मतदाता पहचान पᮢ मᱶ भी गᱶदराम का फोटो और
िपता का नाम िच᭠ताराम उ᭨लेिखत है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-37 ᮟायᳲवंग लायसᱶस मᱶ भी ᮧथम पᭃ का फोटो चि᭭पत है । ᮧदशᭅ
पी-36 मᱶ आयकर िवभाग ᳇ारा जारी पेन काडᭅ मᱶ भी ᮧथम पᭃ का फोटो और िपता का नाम िच᭠ताराम उ᭨लेिखत है
। इस ᮧकार ᮧथम पᭃ (गᱶदराम) के ᳇ारा उपरोᲦ ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेजᲂ मᱶ उनका नाम, उनका फोटो और उनके िपता का
नाम िच᭠ताराम उ᭨लेखत है । दूसरी ओर ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा िवभागीय जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ िजन िजन सािᭃयᲂ का
कथन लेखब᳃ ᳰकया गया है, उनका कथन भी ᭠यायालय के समᭃ नहᱭ कराया गया है, ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ ि᳇तीय पᭃ के
सािᭃयᲂ के कथन पर िवपरीत ᮧभाव पडता है ।
21. ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत द᭭तावेज ᮧदशᭅ पी-21 का अवलोकन ᳰकया गया िजसमᱶ िच᭠ताराम, बहतरीन बाई एवं नाबािलक
रीना कुमारी के ᳇ारा गᱶदराम िपता िच᭠ताराम के िवᱨ᳃ एक आवेदन पᮢ अंतगᭅत धारा 125 दं.ᮧ.सं. वा᭭ते भरण
पोषण रािश ᳰदलाये जाने बाबत ᭠यायालय ᭠याियक द᭛डािधकारी ᮧथम वगᭅ कोरबा के समᭃ ᳰदनांक 21.04.1992
को पेश ᳰकया गया था । ᭠यायालय ᭠याियक द᭛डािधकारी के समᭃ िच᭠ताराम के बयान ᮧदशᭅ पी-24 मᱶ िच᭠ताराम ने
यह कथन ᳰकया है ᳰक गᱶदराम उसका पुᮢ है, उसे मेिडकल अनफᳱट कर ᳰदया गया और उसकᳱ जगह उसके लडके
गᱶदराम को रजगामार कालरी मᱶ काम ᳰदया गया है । इस ᮧकार िच᭠ताराम के ᳇ारा ᭠यायालय कोरबा के समᭃ यह
कथन ᳰक उनके अनफᳱट होने पर गᱶदराम को एस.ई.सी.एल. मᱶ नौकरी ᳰदया गया है तथा गᱶदराम ही उसका पुᮢ है,
िच᭠ताराम के उᲦ ᭭वीकारोिᱫ से ᭭प᳥ ᮧमािणत होता है ᳰक ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम ही वा᭭तिवक ᱨप से िच᭠ताराम का
पुᮢ है, और िच᭠ताराम के मेिडकल अनफᳱट होने पर गᱶदराम ᮧथम पᭃ ही उनकᳱ जगह नौकरी कर रहा था, जबᳰक
इसके िवपरीत िशकायतकताᭅ गᱶदराम पागल होकर कई वषᭅ पू्वᭅ घर छोड कर के कहᱭ चला गया है, तो िच᭠ताराम
ᳰकस गᱶदराम से भरण पोषण के िलए ᭠यायालय कोरबा के समᭃ यह धारा 125 भरण पोषण के िलए दावा पेश
ᳰकया था, इस पर भी ᮧथम पᭃ के ᳇ारा ᮧ᭭तुत दावा को बल िमलता है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-26 ᭠यायालय ᭠याियक
द᭛डािधकारी ᮧथम ᮰ेणी कोरबा ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 09.02.2023 को पाᳯरत आदेश मᱶ िच᭠ताराम/बहतरीन बाई/रीना
बाई का आवेदन पᮢ अंतगᭅत धारा 125 भरण भोषण ᳰदलाये जाने बाबत ᭭वीकार कर गᱶदराम को फरवरी 93 से
300-300 ᱨपये मािसक भरण पोषण रािश देने का आदेश पाᳯरत ᳰकया गया था । ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा िवभागीय
जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ िजन सािᭃयᲂ ने वा᭭तिवक गᱶदराम को पागल हो जाने और घर छोडकर चले जाना कथन ᳰकये हᱹ
ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ िच᭠ताराम एवं बहतरीन बाई के ᳇ारा उनके पुᮢ को पागल हो जाने और घर छोड ᳰदये जाने तथा
भरण पोषण कᳱ रािश उ᭠हᱶ ᮧा᳙ नहᱭ होने के संबंध मᱶ ᳰकसी भी ᭠यायालय अथवा उिचत फोरम मᱶ िशकायत नहᱭ
ᳰकया जाना भी ᮧथम पᭃ के दावा को बल िमलता है ।
22. ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा बहतरीन बाई का िवभागीय जांच मᱶ कथन दजᭅ नहᱭ कराया गया है तथा ᭠यायालय के समᭃ
िशकायतकताᭅ राजकुमार चौहान एवं तथाकिथत िशकायतकताᭅ गᱶदराम को उपि᭭थत रखकर उनका सा᭯य ᮧ᭭तुत
नहᱭ कराया गया है । उपरोᲦ िव᳣ेषण के आधार पर यह ᮧमािणत होता है ᳰक ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम ही वा᭭तिवक ᱨप
से िच᭠ताराम का पुᮢ है तथा बहतरीन बाई उसकᳱ माता है, िच᭠ताराम के मेिडकल अनफᳱट होने के आधार पर
िच᭠ताराम के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम का नाम उनके फोटो सिहत ᮧ᭭तािवत कर, ि᳇तीय पᭃ िवभाग एस.ई.सी.एल.
मᱶ आवेदन के साथ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया था और ि᳇तीय पᭃ के सᭃम अिधकाᳯरयᲂ के ᳇ारा उᲦ द᭭तावेजᲂ कᳱ जांच
कर, तथा सही पाकर आवेदन को ᭭वीकार ᳰकया गया था और इसी आधार पर ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम को नौकरी ᮧदान
3356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
कᳱ गई थी । ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ का बखाᭅ᭭तगी आदेश ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 अवैध एवं अनुिचत होने से शू᭠य
घोिषत ᳰकया जाता है । अतः वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-1 का िन᭬कषᭅ हᱼ मᱶ िनराकृत ᳰकया जाता है ।
वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-2 का िन᭬कषᭅ
23. चुंᳰक वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-1 का िन᭬कषᭅ ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम के पᭃ मᱶ ᮧमािणत ᱟआ है । ᮧथम पᭃ ने वषᭅ 1990 से
07.02.2017 तक कुल 27 वषᲄ तक ि᳇तीय पᭃ सं᭭थान मᱶ कायᭅरत होना अिभवचन ᳰकया है । औ᳒ोिगक िववाद
अिधिनयम, क᭨याणकारी अिधिनयम है । ᮧथम पᭃ ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 के प᳟ात से ᮧथम पᭃ लगभग 06 वषᭅ
तक ल᭥बी कानूनी ᮧᳰᮓया से जुझता रहा है, जो िनि᳟त ᱨप से ही ᮧथम पᭃ के साथ साथ उनके पᳯरवार/आि᮰तᲂ
को आᳶथᭅक एवं मानिसक परेशािनयᲂ का सामना करना पड़ा है । हालांᳰक ᮧथम पᭃ् ने उसकᳱ सेवा समाि᳙ ᳰदनांक
07.02.2017 के प᳟ात से बेरोजगार होने तथा अ᭠यᮢ कायᭅरत नहᱭ होने के संबंध मᱶ अपने दावा मᱶ, अपने शपथ पᮢ
मᱶ तथा अपने ᭠यायालयीन कथन मᱶ कहᱭ भी उ᭨लेख नहᱭ ᳰकया है और न ही इस संबंध मᱶ कोई द᭭तावेज या ᮧमाण
पᮢ पेश ᳰकया गया है । ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा भी ᮧथम पᭃ के बेरोजगार होने अथवा नहᱭ होने के संबंध मᱶ भी कोई
᭭प᳥ सा᭯य एवं द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । य᳒िप ᮧथम पᭃ सेवा समाि᳙ के समय 48 वषᭅ का ᳞िᲦ होना
अिभलेख के अनुसार दᳶशᭅत होता है ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ यह नहᱭ कहा जा सकता ᳰक ᮧथम पᭃ सेवा समाि᳙ के बाद से
पूणᭅ ᱨप से बेरोजगार है । ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ को िपछला स᭥पूणᭅ िहतलाभ ᳰदलाया जाना उिचत ᮧतीत नहᱭ
होता है, बि᭨क ᮧथम पᭃ को उसकᳱ सेवा समाि᳙ ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 से उसे ᮧा᳙ होने वाले अंितम वेतन का एक
चौथाई पाᳯर᮰िमक ᳰदलाया जाना उिचत ᮧतीत होता है । इस कारण वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-2 का िनराकरण अंशतः
ᮧमािणत मᱶ यह ᳰदया जाता है ᳰक ᮧथम पᭃ उसे ᮧा᳙ होने वाले अंितम वेतन का एक चौथाई वेतन ᮧा᳙ करने का
अिधकारी है ।
वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-3 का िन᭬कषᭅ
24. इस संबंध मᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम ने अपने ᭭टेटमᱶट आफ लेम मᱶ यह अिभवचन ᳰकया ᳰक आरोप पᮢ के आधार पर
ि᳇तीय पᭃकार के ᳇ारा जांच कᳱ कायᭅवाही, जांच अिधकारी ᮰ी ए.के. वमाᭅ कॉलरी मैनेजर के ᳇ारा कᳱ गई, िजसका
ᮧथम जांच ᳰदनांक 23.12.2015 को ᳰकया गया, तदोपरा᭠त 29.12.2015 को जांच कᳱ ितिथ तय कᳱ गई थी । इस
संबंध मᱶ ि᳇तीय पᭃ के साᭃी अमीता चौहान के ᭠यायालयीन कथन का अवलोकन ᳰकया गया िजसके ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ
साᭃी ने ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक गᱶदराम कᳱ िनयुिᲦ उसके िपताजी के मेिडकल अनफᳱट के कारण उनके ᭭थान पर ᱟई थी
। गᱶदराम ने ऐसा कोई द᭭तावेज नही ᳰदया, िजससे यह दᳶशᭅत हो सके ᳰक वह फजᱮ ᳞िᲦ है । ᮧदशᭅ पी-1 से लेकर
ᮧदशᭅ पी-7 तक के द᭭तावेजᲂ का िन᭬पादन िच᭠ताराम ᳇ारा क᭥पनी के अिधकाᳯरयᲂ के समᭃ ᳰकया था, िजसके
आधार पर ᮧदशᭅ पी-8 के ᳇ारा ये सभी द᭭तावेज िनयुिᲦ कᳱ अनुसंशा के साथ क᭥पनी को भेजा गया था । इस साᭃी
ने यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक गᱶदराम के वोटर आईडी काडᭅ और ᭭कूल स᳷टᭅᳰफकेट कᳱ कोई भी द᭭तावेज उसके ᳇ारा
᭠यायालय मᱶ पेश नहᱭ कᳱ गई है । ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭वीकार ᳰकया है ᳰक गᱶदराम को द᭭तावेज कᳱ
कापी दी गई थी िजसमᱶ उससे पावती ली गई थी, उसकᳱ पावती ᭠यायालय के समᭃ पेश नहᱭ है । यह भी ᭭वीकार
कᳱ है ᳰक जांच हेतु और आदेश देने हेतु सᭃम अिधकारी सब एᳯरया मैनेजर है । ᮧदशᭅ डी-1 के अलावा गᱶदराम को
और कोई आरोप पᮢ जारी नहᱭ ᳰकया गया, ᳰदनांक 06.11.2015 को जारी कारण बताᲐ नोᳯटस उसने ᮧकरण मᱶ
पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है । ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ऐसा कोई द᭭तावेज नहᱭ है, िजसमᱶ गᱶदराम को
आरोप पᮢ ᳰदनांक 11.09.2015 जारी ᳰकया गया था, िजसके आधार पर गᱶदराम को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकया गया है
। यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ᮧदशᭅ डी-16 मᱶ ᮧारंिभक जांच करने का उ᭨लेख है, ᳰक᭠तु इस संबंध मᱶ कोई भी ᮧित
ᮧबंधन ᳇ारा पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है । यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ᮧबंधन ᳇ारा सुमित बाई िच᭠ताराम कᳱ पि᳀ है, ऐसा
कोई द᭭तावेज ᭠यायालय मᱶ पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है । ᮧदशᭅ डी-21 मᱶ िशकायतकताᭅ राजकुमार ने कोई भी द᭭तावेज
गᱶदराम के िवᱨ᳃ पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया था और गवाही के दौरान अगली बैठक मᱶ पेश करने का कथन ᳰकया था । जांच
कायᭅवाही के अंितम लाईन मᱶ पूवᭅ मᱶ अगली बैठक का ितिथ ᳰदन सोमवार ᳰदनांक 25.07.2016 िनयत ᳰकया गया
था तथा सभी पᭃकारा◌े◌ं के ह᭭ताᭃर होने के प᳟ात बाद मᱶ इसे फेिᮩकेट कर, ᳰदन सोमवार को काटा गया तथा
तारीख को 26.07.2016 को रखा जाता है, ऐसा कांटछांट ᳰकया गया िजसमे ᳰकसी भी पᭃकार का ह᭭ताᭃर नहᱭ
िलया गया । यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ᮧदशᭅ डी-34 के 29वᱭ बैठक मᱶ िनधाᭅᳯरत ितिथ के पहले ᳰदनांक
13.01.2017 को िबना समुिचत सूचना के जांच कायᭅवाही गᱶदराम के िबना उपि᭭थित के कᳱ गई, िबना एकपᭃीय
ᳰकये िनधाᭅᳯरत ितिथ के 10 ᳰदन पूवᭅ जांच कायᭅवाही कᳱ गई । साᭃी ने ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है गᱶदराम
को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰदनांक 26.11.2015 के आधार पर नहᱭ ᳰकया गया है, बि᭨क चाजᭅशीट ᮓमांक 3352 ᳰदनांक
11.09.2015 के आधार पर ᳰकया गया है और उᲦ द᭭तावेज उनके पास नहᱭ है और न ही उ᭠हᲂने ᭠यायालय मᱶ पेश
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3357
ᳰकया है । इस साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭प᳥ ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक राजकुमार ᳇ारा पेश िशकायत फजᱮ है इसिलए िशकायत कᳱ
मूल ᮧित एवं छायाᮧित पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया है ।
25. ि᳇तीय पᭃ के साᭃी अमीता चौहान ने अपने ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ यह ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक जांच हेतु और आदेश देने हेतु
सᭃम अिधकारी सब एᳯरया मैनेजर है, जांच कमेटी गठन के आदेश का कोई द᭭तावेज उनके ᳇ारा पेश नहᱭ ᳰकया गया
है, ᮧदशᭅ डी-1 के अलावा गᱶदराम को ओर कोई आरोप पᮢ नहᱭ ᳰदया गया है । ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ इस साᭃी ने यह भी
᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ऐसा कोई द᭭तावेज पेश नहᱭ है, िजसमᱶ गᱶदराम को आरोप पᮢ ᳰदनांक 11.09.2015 जारी ᳰकया
गया था, िजसके आधार पर गᱶदराम को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकया गया है । यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक ᭃेᮢीय काᳶमᭅक
ᮧबंधक कोरबा ᭃेᮢ के पᮢ ᮓमांक 398 ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 ᳇ारा जो अनुसंशा ᮧा᳙ ᱟ◌ुई है, उसी के आधार पर
गᱶदराम को सेवा से बखाᭅ᭭त ᳰकया गया है । साᭃी ने यह भी ᭭वीकार कᳱ है ᳰक 26.07.2016 को 17वᱭ बैठक ᮧदशᭅ
डी-22 मᱶ गᱶदराम उपि᭭थत ᱟआ था यᲂᳰक इसके पूवᭅ बैठक मᱶ तारीख और ᳰदन को कांटछांट ᳰकया गया था, िजसकᳱ
जानकारी गᱶदराम को नहᱭ ᱟ◌ुई थी । ᮧितपरीᭃण मᱶ यह भी ᭭वीकार ᳰकया गया है ᳰक ᮧदशᭅ डी-34 के 29वᱭ बैठक
मᱶ िनधाᭅᳯरत ितिथ के पहले ᳰदनांक 13.01.2017 को िबना समुिचत सूचना के जांच कायᭅवाही गᱶदराम कᳱ िबना
उपि᭭थित के कᳱ गई, िबना एकपᭃीय ᳰकये िनधाᭅᳯरत ितिथ के 10 ᳰदन पूवᭅ जांच कᳱ कायᭅवाही कᳱ गई, जबᳰक
गᱶदराम का मेिडकल स᳷टᭅᳰफकेट ᮧदशᭅ पी-16 मेिडकाल आᳰफसर ᳇ारा जारी बीमारी स᳷टᭅᳰफकेट 11.01.2017
गᱶदराम कᳱ ओर से ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकया गया था ।
26. ᮧकरण मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत ᮧदशᭅ पी-9 जो राजकुमार चौहान का िशकायत पᮢ है, का अवलोकन ᳰकया गया । उᲦ िशकायत
पᮢ राजकुमार चौहान के ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 24.11.2015 को उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक, एस.ई.सी.एल. रजगामार को ᳰदया
गया है, िजसमᱶ एस.ई.सी.एल. के अिधकारी ᳇ारा उᲦ िशकायत पर सं᭄ान लते ᱟए ᳰदनांक 27.11.2015 को कृपया
᭜वᳯरत कायᭅवाही कᳱ ᮧᳰᮓया करᱶ, कᳱ टीप अंᳰकत ᳰकया गया है, िजसमᱶ ि᳇तीय पᭃ क᭥पनी के अिधकारी के ह᭭ताᭃर
हᱹ । इसी ᮧकार ᮧदशᭅ पी-11 का अवलोकन ᳰकया गया, जो उप ᭃेᮢीय ᮧबंधक रजगामार उपᭃेᮢ के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃ
गᱶदराम को आरोप पᮢ ᮓमांक 1405 ᳰदनांक 26.11.2015 जारी ᳰकया गया है , िजसकᳱ पुि᳥ ि᳇तीय पᭃ के साᭃी
अमीता चौहान के ᮧितपरीᭃण कᳱ कंिडका-35 कᳱ यह ᭭वीकारोिᱫ ᳰक िशकायत िवभाग के सं᭄ान मᱶ ᳰदनांक
27.11.2015 को पहली बार आया इसके पहले गᱶदराम के िवᱨ᳃ िवभाग मᱶ कोई िशकायत ᮧा᳙ नहᱭ होने के कथन
से होती है । अब ᮧ᳤ यह उ᭜प᳖ होता है ᳰक िशकायतकताᭅ के ᳇ारा ᮧदशᭅ पी-9 का िशकायत पᮢ ᳰदनांक
24.11.2015 को ᳰदया गया, िजसका एस.ई.सी.एल. ᳇ारा सं᭄ान ᳰदनांक 27.11.2015 को िलया गया, पर᭠तु ᮧदशᭅ
पी-11 का आरोप पᮢ ᳰदनांक 26.11.2015 को ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम को ᳰदया गया है, ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ जब िशकायत का
सं᭄ान ᳰदनांक 27.11.2015 को िलया गया है तब उसके ठीक एक ᳰदन पूवᭅ ᳰदनांक 26.11.2015 को आरोप पᮢ
ᳰदया गया है, इस ᮧकार िशकायत ᮧा᳙ होने के एक ᳰदन पूवᭅ ही आरोप पᮢ ᳰदया जाना ᮧथम दृ᳥या ᮧमािणत होता है
जो, िनि᳟त ᱨप से ᮧाकृितक ᭠याय के िस᳒ा᭠त के िवपरीत है ।
27. एस.ई.सी.एल. कᳱ ओर से कᳱ गई िवभागीय जांच कायᭅवाही कᳱ 27वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 27.12.2016 ᮧदशᭅ पी-14 का
अवलोकन ᳰकया गया । उᲦ जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ जांच अिधकारी ने आरोपी पᭃ को अपना पᭃ रखने का मौका ᳰदया
था, िजस पर आरोपी ने ᮧबंधन ᳇ारा जो गवाह ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकये गये है, उ᭠हᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत ᳰकये जाने का िनवेदन ᳰकया था ताᳰक
उनका ᮧितपरीᭃण ᳰकया जा सके, तब ᮧबंधन ᮧितिनिध ने गवाह आज उपि᭭थत नहᱭ होने के कारण एक ᳰदन का
समय ᳰदये जाना ᳞Ღ ᳰकया, िजसे ᭭वीकार करते ᱟए अगली ितिथ ᳰदनांक 28.12.2016 शाम 4. बजे िनधाᭅᳯरत कᳱ
गई । आरोपी के ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 27.12.2016 को ही एनेजर 1 पेज 1 से 37 तक के द᭭तावेज जांच के दौरान जमा
ᳰकया था । पर᭠तु ᮧबंधन ᮧितिनिध के ᳇ारा उᲦ द᭭तावेज अगली ितिथ ᳰदनांक 28.12.2016 को ᮧ᭭तुत नहᱭ ᳰकया
गया, िजससे ᭭प᳥ दᳶशᭅत होता है ᳰक यᳰद ᮧथम पᭃ के ᳇ारा चाहे गये द᭭तावेज ᮧबंधन ᮧितिनिध ᳇ारा ᮧ᭭तुत नहᱭ
ᳰकया जाकर, उ᭠हᱶ बचाव का अवसर नहᱭ ᳰदया गया ।
28. िवभागीय जांच कायᭅवाही कᳱ 28वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 28.12.2016 ᮧदशᭅ पी-15 के ए-से-ए भाग के अवलोकन से दᳶशᭅत
है ᳰक अगली ितिथ 23.01.2017 को ᮧातः 10. बजे िनधाᭅᳯरत ᳰकया गया था और इसकᳱ अलग से कोई सूचना नहᱭ
देना उ᭨लेिखत ᳰकया गया है । उसके बाद ᮧबंधन ᮧितिनिध ᳇ारा िवभगाीय जांच कायᭅवाही कᳱ 29 वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक
13.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-34), 30वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 14.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-35), 31वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 15.01.2017
(ᮧ.डी.-36), 32वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 16.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-36), 33वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 17.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-38), 34वᱭ
बैठक ᳰदनांक 18.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-39), 35वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 20.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-40), 36वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक
21.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-41), 37वᱭ बैठक ᳰदनांक 23.01.2017 (ᮧ.डी.-42) आयोिजत ᳰकया गया । य᳒िप ᮧबंधन
ᮧितिनिध के ᳇ारा ᳰदनांक 28.12.2017 के 28वᱭ जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ अगली जांच कायᭅवाही ᳰदनांक 23.01.2017
3358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
को होना उ᭨लेिखत करते ᱟए ᳰदनांक 28.12.2017 से 23.01.2017 तक 8-9 जांच कायᭅवाही िबना आरोपी के
उपि᭭थित के स᭥पाᳰदत कर ᳰदया गया और उसमᱶ भी आरोपी को अनुपि᭭थत बताते ᱟए जांच कायᭅवाही पूणᭅ कर
समा᳙ ᳰकया जाना उ᭨लेिखत ᳰकया गया है । ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ यह भी ᭭प᳥ ᱨप से ᮧमािणत होता है ᳰक ᮧथम पᭃ
गᱶदराम कᳱ अनुपि᭭थित मᱶ उᲦ जांच कायᭅवाही ᳰकया जाना, ᮧाकृितक एवं नैसᳶगᭅक जांच कायᭅवाही के िस᳒ा᭠त के
िवपरीत है ।
29. इस ᮧकार उपरोᲦ िव᳣ेषण के आधार पर ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम को िशकायत पूवᭅ, आरोप पᮢ ᳰदया
जाना, ᮧथम पᭃ को िबना सूचना ᳰदये जांच कायᭅवाही कᳱ ितिथ मᱶ पᳯरवᳶतᭅत कर, जांच कायᭅवाही ᳰकया जाना, ᮧथम
पᭃ ᳇ारा चाहे गये द᭭तावेजᲂ को जांच ᮧᳰᮓया मᱶ ᮧ᭭तुत नहᱭ ᳰकया जाना िनि᳟त ᱨप से ि᳇तीय पᭃ के ᳇ारा ᮧथम
पᭃ जांच अिधकाᳯरयᲂ के ᳇ारा जांच कायᭅवाही मᱶ ᮧाकृितक ᭠याय के िस᳒ा᭠त का पालन नहᱭ ᳰकया जाना दᳶशᭅत
होता है । अतः वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-3 का िन᭬कषᭅ नहᱭ मᱶ िनराकृत ᳰकया जाता है ।
वाद ᮧ᳤ ᮓमांक-4 सहायता एवं ᳞य
30. उपरोᲦ वाद ᮧ᳤ᲂ के िव᳣ेषण मᱶ ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम अपना दावा ᮧमािणत करने मᱶ सफल रहा है । ऐसी ि᭭थित मᱶ
ᮧथम पᭃ कᳱ ओर से ᮧ᭭तुत ᭭टेटमᱶट आफ लेम ᮧमािणत पाये जाने से ᭭वीकार ᳰकया जाता है । अतः ᮧकरण मᱶ
िन᳜ानुसार अिधिनणᭅय पाᳯरत ᳰकया जाता हैः-
1.
ि᳇तीय पᭃ एस.ई.सी.एल. सब सᳯरया मैनेजर रजगामार, सब एᳯरया कोरबा (छ.ग.) को आदेिशत ᳰकया जाता
है ᳰक अिधिनणᭅय कᳱ घोषणा ᳰदनांक से 30 ᳰदवस के भीतर ᮧथम पᭃ (गᱶदराम चौहान) को उसके पूवᭅ पद (जनरल
मजदूर) पर पुनः ᭭थािपत करᱶ ।
2.
ि᳇तीय पᭃ एस.ई.सी.एल. को आदेिशत ᳰकया जाता है ᳰक अिधिनणᭅय कᳱ घोषणा ᳰदनांक से 30 ᳰदवस के
भीतर ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम चौहान को उसकᳱ सेवा समाि᳙ ᳰदनांक 07.02.2017 से सेवा मे पुनᭅ᭭थािपत ᳰकये जाने के
ᳰदनांक तक एक चौथाई पाᳯर᮰िमक भुगतान करᱶ ।
3.
ि᳇तीय पᭃ एस.ई.सी.एल. अिधिनणᭅय कᳱ घोषणा ᳰदनांक से 30 ᳰदवस के भीतर ᮧथम पᭃ गᱶदराम चौहान को
पुनः सेवा मᱶ ᭭थािपत नहᱭ करने तथा एक चौथाई पाᳯर᮰िमक का भुगतान नहᱭ करने पर, सेवा समाि᳙ ᳰदनांक से,
सेवा मᱶ पुनᭅ᭭थािपत करने के ᳰदनांक तक ᮧथम पᭃ को उसके वेतन का 50 ᮧितशत पाᳯर᮰िमक एवं 6 ᮧितशत वाᳶषᭅक
᭣याज पृथक से अदा करने हेतु उᱫरदायी रहेगा ।
4.
उभय पᭃ अपना अपना वाद ᳞य ᭭वयं वहन करᱶगे ।
अिधिनणᭅय पाᳯरत, ह᭭ताᭃᳯरत,
अिधिनणᭅय मेरे िनदᱷश पर
ᳰदनांᳰकत
टंᳰकत
Sd/-
Sd/-
(अिवनाश के. िᮢपाठी)
(अिवनाश के. िᮢपाठी )
᮰म ᭠यायाधीश
᮰म ᭠यायाधीश
औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम
औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम
᮰म ᭠यायालय िबलासपुर (छ.ग.)
᮰म ᭠यायालय िबलासपुर (छ.ग.)
ubZ fnYyh] 15 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
सह
आसनसोल
संदभᭅ
dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/176/2005-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3359
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2023
S.O. 1517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 46/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/176/2005–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 46 OF 2006
PARTIES: Ganesh Bouri
Vs.
Management of Nimcha Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
05.06.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/176/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 03.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Nimcha Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Nimcha Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri Ganesh Bouri,
U.G. Loader from service w.e.f. 3.7.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman is
entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/176/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 03.08.2006 from the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 46 of 2006 was registered on 14.08.2006
and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited has appeared along with Mr. Sumit
Choudhury, the Management Witness. Case is fixed up today for appearance of Mr. S.K. Pandey, Union
representative and for evidence of Management Witness and in the event of non-representation of the dependents of
the workman, the case shall be dismissed. It is 12:05 PM now. On call none appears for the substituted dependents of
Ganesh Bouri. On perusal of record, it appears that a direction was given to the office on 19.09.2022 to issue notice to
the substituted dependent of workman and the same has been complied on 30.09.2022 where by a notice was issued to
Smt. Rubi Bouri, wife of the deceased workman. None appeared on behalf of substituted dependents of Ganesh Bouri.
It appears to me that evidence neither has been adduced on behalf of the dismissed workman nor his legal
representatives. Under such circumstances, no onus lies upon the Management to adduce any evidence. The witness
attending the court is discharged without examination due to non-representation of the workman.
3360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Since Ganesh Bouri and thereafter his legal representatives have not come forward to establish their claim
and Mr. S.K. Pandey, Union representative failed to turn up, I am of the view that the legal heirs of the dismissed
workman are not inclined to pursue this Industrial Dispute. Therefore, the Reference case is dismissed in form of a No
Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
पंजाब एंड ᳲसंध बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a6@2010) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011/33/2009- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी , उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2023
S.O. 1518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.6/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/33/2009- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 6 OF 2010
Parties : Employer in relation to the management of
Punjab & Sind Bank
AND
Its Workmen
Appearance :
On behalf of the Management : Absent
On behalf of the Workman
: Absent
Dated: 10th July, 2023
AWARD
By Order No L-12011/33/2009/(IR) (B-II) dated 02-06-2009, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
excise of the power conferred under section 10 1(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the
following dispute for adjudication:
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3361
“Whether the action of the management in regard to deduction of salary from the participant employees on
the days of Dharna in spite of their duly furnished leave applications is justified? What relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
The facts giving rise to the present dispute in brief are that on detection of grave irregularities and
misconduct committed by one Sri Goutam Sengupta, in his personal capacity as a Special Assistant of Punjab and
Sind Bank, RCC Branch, Kolkata and who also happens to be the General Secretary of All India Punjab & Sind Bank
Staff Organisation, the management had charge sheeted him on 30th May, 2008.
The Union to create a pressure upon the management for withdrawal of the charge sheet against said
Sri Goutam Sengupta and to obtain mandate to 9th bipartite settlement resorted to demonstration and Dharna within
the Zonal Office, Kolkata on different dates.
That several workmen of the bank who owe their allegiance to the trade union and in order to participate in
the demonstration and dharna on 13th August, 2008 and 4th September, 2008 during the working days have applied for
casual leave. They on assumption that their leave was granted by concerned authorities absented themselves from the
duty and took part in the agitation programmed on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008.
That due to absence of the staff on those two dates there was shortage of staff strength and the business of the
bank was hampered and suffered. Therefore, the bank deducted two days’ salary of those staff who participated in the
demonstration and dharna and for remaining on unauthorized absence.
It has been alleged by the Union, since those staff were on casual leave in view of clause 13.28 of bipartite
settlement dated 19-10-1966 they are entitled to pay and allowance on casual leave as if they were presumed to be on
duty. They have also alleged the management in order to thwart the trade union activities had taken such illegal
decision. Therefore, they have prayed for setting aside the action of the bank management with regard to deduction of
the salary from the participant employees on the date of Dharna/demonstration on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008.
On the contrary, the bank has alleged the action of the staff of the bank to participate in the demonstration or
dharna on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008 without any sanctioned leave is strictly prohibited under the provision of
section 36 AD of the Banking Company Regulation Act, 1949.
As per the staff circular no. 1921/16th June, 1989 wages are not payable to workmen for remaining absent for
the cause of a strike/demonstration/ Dharna. The service condition of the workmen of the bank is governed by the
bipartite settlement executed by and between the management of the bank and the trade union. Apart from such
bipartite settlement, various circulars which are administrative in nature are issued from time to time and the same are
binding on the management as well as on the workmen. Any infringement thereof, attracts the mischief of the
consequences that are enumerated in the circulars/ administrative guidelines or in the bipartite settlement. Therefore, it
has prayed for dismissal of the reference.
The Union in order to substantiate its case has examined Sri Goutam Sengupta, General Secretary as W.W. 1
and Sri Kashinath Ojha, one of the members of the Union as W.W. 2. But, no documents whatsoever have been
produced from the side of the union.
The Union has filed evidence in chief of one Sri Swapan Saha, but whom it has failed to produce to tender
his evidence in chief on affidavit and face cross examination. Therefore, such incomplete evidence of Sri Swapan
Saha is not considered.
Similarly, the management has filed evidence in chief of Md. Hridyatulla Seikh and that of Mrs. Padmini
Dash, but whom bank has failed to produce to tender their evidence in chief on affidavit and face cross examination
by the Union. Similarly, no documents have been filed by the management to substantiate its case.
However, it is an admitted fact that there was Dharna/demonstration in the regional office of the bank at
Kolkata on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008. It is also admitted fact that the said Dharna and demonstration was held by
the Union to protest against the charge sheet issued against its general secretary Sri Goutam Sengupta, W.W.1 for his
alleged personal misconduct and in respect of 9th bipartite settlement.
Under the circumstances the issue that requires determination is whether the demonstration called by the
union is legal and justified and whether the employees are entitled to wages on the days they took part in the
demonstration held on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008 without sanctioned casual leave?
The W.W. 1 Sri Guotam Sengupta, General Secretary of the Union, in his cross examination has admitted
that the issue which was involved in the said demonstration and dharna held on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008 was
against he being charge sheeted by the management for his alleged misconduct in his individual capacity as an
employee of the bank, but he at the same time has stated that dharna was called when the bank did not give consent to
the bipartite settlement arrived at in between the bank and the union. He also admitted that no previous notice of
dharna which was held on 13-0-8-2008 and 04-09-2008 were served upon the management of the bank, but at the
3362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
same time he stated that it is not mandatory to serve the notice to the management about the demonstration like in case
of strike.
W.W.2 during his cross examination has stated that he took part in the demonstration as his Manager had
orally sanctioned leave to him. That bank employees take their leaves as their right. He also stated that 15/16
employees participated in the demonstration and there was no disturbance of the normal function of the bank due to
such demonstration. He at the same time admitted that bank discharge public utility service. That the union issued
prior notice to the bank about the demonstration on 13-0-8-2008 and 04-09-2008.
Unfortunately, the W.W.2 and the Union have failed to produce the copy of prior notice of demonstration
served upon the management, informing it about the demonstration that would be held in the regional office at
Calcutta on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008, during office day and banking hours.
Further the union has failed to produce copy of 9th bipartite settlement that was executed in between the bank
and the union and which the bank failed to comply to justify the demonstration.
It is true in the present case the Union of the Bank had resorted to Protest/Dharna and Demonstration at
Regional Office at Kolkata on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-2008, against the alleged high handedness action of the
Management. Industrial Dispute Act, is silent on the subject of protest/demonstration and dharna by the Industrial
employees during working days. However, the right to protest is a Fundamental Right.
It has come on record 17/18 workmen to take part in the protest/demonstration on 13-08-2008 and 04-09-
2008 which were working days, they had applied for leave and they were under impression their leave was approved
by the authority, they joined the protest demonstration.
Leave is a legal entitlement of an employee but not a prerogative. Every employee has right to avail leave
and to be absent to the work under any circumstances but at the same time they have to adhere to the leave policy and
availing the leaves within the limit and as per procedure laid down therein must be followed by every employee.
Leave is not a right. Mere filing of the leave application by a group of employees to join a protest demonstration
without approval of the same cannot considered to be a sanctioned leave. It is true that there may be an unforeseen
situation and emergency situation which may compelled an employee to absent himself from the duty without prior
approval of leave or without filing a leave application and his such absence cannot be considered to be an
unauthorised leave. But if a group of employees engaged in public utility or banking service in order to join a protest
demonstration against the Management during working days ought to have obtained sanctioned leave from the
Authority concerned, so the business of the bank is not hampered and bank customers or public at large is not harassed
due to shortage of the staff.
That apart nothing has come on record to show that notice of the demonstration during the office hours and
working days was duly served upon the management informing the management in advance. The management in the
public banking sector is not the capitalistic and the workmen an exploited both are paid employees and own their
existence to the direct investment to the public fund. Both are expected to represent public interest directly and have to
promote them. Therefore, the Union is expected to inform the Management about its proposed demonstration during
banking hours well in advance and allow the management of the bank to prepare itself to handle the business of the
Bank with less number of staff/workmen. The staff who intend to take part in the protest demonstration ought to have
remained absent from duty after due sanction and approval of his/their leave.
Therefore, the absence without approval of leave can be deemed to be unauthorised and management has
prerogative right to deal with such unauthorised leave and impose punishment having regards to the facts and
circumstances.
Further, from the materials on record it appears the Union in order to create a pressure upon the management
for withdrawal of the charge sheet filed against its General Secretary, for his misconduct had organised demonstration
and protest against the management to put pressure for withdrawal of the same.
In view of the above, this Tribunal holds the action of the Management of Punjab and Sind Bank in
deducting salary of two days of those staff who participated in protest demonstration without prior approval or
sanctioned leave to be just and legal. Accordingly, the reference case no. 06 of 2010 is disposed of and Award is
passed to that effect.
K. D. BHUTIA Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2023
का.आ. 1519.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
िनदेशक, आईसीएआर-नेशनल ᭣यूरो ऑफ ᳰफश जेनेᳯटक ᳯरसोसᱷज, कैनाल ᳳरंग रोड, ᳰदलकुशा मागᭅ, लखनऊ; ᮧोपराइटर /
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3363
ऑयुिपयर, मेससᭅ ए. के एसोिसए᭗स, िᮧयदᳶशᭅनी कॉलोनी, सीतापुर रोड, लखनऊ, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और
᮰ी िमिथलेश वाजपेयी, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण एवं ᮰म ᭠ यायालय,
लखनऊ पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया 46/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है, ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19/09/2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल-42025-07-2023-125-आईआर-(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court–Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director, ICAR-National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Canal Ring Road, Dilkusha Marg, Lucknow ;
Proprietor/Occupier, M/s A K Associates, Priyadarshini Colony, Sitapur Road, Lucknow, and Shri Mithilesh
Bajpai,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19/09/2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-125- IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 46/2022
BETWEEN
Mithilesh Bajpai w/o Balram Babu Bajpai r/o Sub/Major R P Singh, 589-Kha 654/2 Avadh Nagar, Ring Road,
Telibagh, Lucknow
AND
1. ICAR-National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Canal Ring Road, Dilkusha Marg, Lucknow 226002, through its
Director
2. M/s A K Associates, 3/47A, Sector B, Priyadarshini Colony, Sitapur Road, Lucknow through its Proprietor/
Occupier.
AWARD
Smt Mithlesh Bajpai, claimant has filed present adjudication case u/s 2A of the Act inter alia on the ground
that he was initially appointed on the post of Telephone Operator with the respondent on 01.06.2005; however, her
survives were terminated by respondent No. 2 on 01.09.2021 in view of the direction issued by the respondent no. 1
vide a letter dated 31.08.2001 without assigning any reasons; accordingly, it pleaded by the claimant that disengaged
of her services by the respondent no. 2 is against the provisions of section 25 F and H of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
On 15.11.2022 an application has been moved on behalf of the claimant (W-6) that amicable settlement has
entered between and they have assured that they will take her back and allow here to work with the opposite parties on
which she was working with the respondents.
The claimant is present in person and Sri Pramod Kumar Awasthi, duly authorized by Sri Utttam Kumar,
Director, ICAR, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow is present.
Smt. Mithlesh Bajpai, claimant once again has reiterated the averment made in her application dated
15.11.2022 and further submits that she is presently working with the respondents and the said fact was admitted by
the authorized representative of the respondents.
3364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the foregoing reasons, the present adjudication case is disposed of on the ground that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute, involved in the present case as the claimant has been allowed to discharge her duties with
the ICAR, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow.
No order as to cost.
Lucknow.
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
21st April, 2023.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2023
.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
हि᭨दया डॉक कॉ᭥᭡लेस उपभोᲦा सहकारी सिमित िलिमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV(a24@2010) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[la- ,y-32012/1/2009- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.24/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Haldia Dock Complex
Consumers’ Cooperative Society Ltd. and their workmen.
[No. L-32012/1/2009- IR(B.II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 24 OF 2010
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Haldia Dock Complex Consumers’ Cooperative Society Ltd.
AND
Its Workman
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management : Mr.Pringal Bhattacharya & Rajdip Sinha, Advocate
On behalf of the Workman : Mr. Monoranjan Bhunia, Advocate.
Dated: 7th August, 2023
AWARD
By Order No L-32012/1/2009 /IR(B-II) dated 18-01-2010, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the
following issue to this Tribunal for adjudication –
“Whether the action of the management of Haldia Dock Complex Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd.,
Haldia, District –Purba Midnapore in terminating Smt. Rinku Shome, Office Attendant, is justified?
What relief the workman is entitled?”
The facts giving rise to the present reference in brief are that Haldia Dock Complex at Haldia Port, a Central
Govt. Undertaking under the Ministry of Shipping, has a consumer co-operative society, known as Haldia Dock
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3365
Complex Consumer Co-Operative Society registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Society Act, 1983 at its
main complex.
Smt. Rinku Shome, the concerned workman was appointed as a sales personnel in the store of the Co-
Operative Society situate at Haldia Dock Main Complex on 04-05-1983. Her such service was confirmed on 03-08-
1994. While she was discharging her duties as Sales Personnel she was charge sheeted for misconduct and the
authority of the society initiated a departmental proceeding against her and in which she was found guilty to the
charge. However, considering her financial difficulties and apology tendered by her, the findings of the departmental
enquiry was suspended and she was allowed to join her duty not as a sales personnel but as an “Office Attendant”.
Latter, the society in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 18-10-2003 decided to abolish the post of Office
Attendant w.e.f. 01-11-2013 and the concerned workman was duly informed about the same.
The Board of Directors of the society in a meeting held on 12-01-2004 decided to terminate the service of
Smt. Rinku Shome w.e.f. 31-03-2014 and was informed her about the same vide letter dated 16-01-2004 with a
direction to receive all her dues. Therefore, she was removed from the service w.e.f. 31-03-2004. Hence, this
reference.
Haldia Dock Complex Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. in its written statement has alleged that
Consumer Co-Operative Society registered under West Bengal Cooperative Society Act, 1983 and the concerned
workman being an employee of such Co-Operative Society, the appropriate authority under the Act of 1983 is the
Registrar of Co-Operative Society and who is the competent authority to hear all the disputes relating to cooperative
society. The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute. Therefore, it has prayed for dismissal
of the reference.
The concerned workman to prove her case has examined herself as W.W. No.1. The documents produced
from her side have been marked as Exhibit- W/1 to W/13 on formal proof being dispensed with as per order dated 16-
01-2012.
On the other hand the Society has examined its four Directors namely Sri Sisir Kumar Bangal as M.W. No.1,
Sri Khokon Kumar Dolui as M.W. No.2, Sri Nandalal Dinda as M.W. No.3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Das as M.W. No.4.
That documents produced by the Society have been marked as Exhibit- M/1 to M/18 on formal proof being
dispensed with on 06-01-2012.
From the submission made by the Ld. Counsels for both sides and the pleadings of the parties, it is
undisputed fact that Smt. Rinku Shome the alleged workman was an employee of Haldia Dock Complex Consumer
Co-Operative Society Ltd. registered under the West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983 (now repealed by Act
of 2006) and not an employee of Haldia Dock Complex. Under the circumstances, let see whether this Tribunal has
jurisdiction to try the dispute under reference.
From the documents that have been filed by the parties and from the Certificate of Registration it appears that
Haldia Dock Complex Consumer Co-Operative Society is registered under West Bengal Co-Operative Society Act,
1983 in the year 1990.
Section 4(14) of West Bengal Co-Operative Society Act, 1983 provides Consumer Co-Operative Society
means a co-operative society, the primary object of which is to supply consumer goods and to render such other
services to its members and other consumers as may be required in the matter of supply and production of consumer
goods and includes a federation of such co-operative societies.
From such definition of Consumer Co-operative Society, the Cooperative society under reference appears to
be a society engaged in business/ trade in consumer goods/products for the satisfaction of its members as well as that
of other consumers of the society. The nature of business in which the concerned society is engaged cannot function
without the cooperation between it and its workmen for the supply or distribution of goods or service with a view to
satisfy the human wants and wishes. Therefore, the systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an
employer and his workmen for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy
human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature) is an industry, in
view of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. –vs- R. Raja Appa & Ors., 1978, AIR 548.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. K.A. Annamma –vs- the Secretary, Cochin Cooperative Hospital
Society Ltd. arising out of S.L.P. (C ) no.29765 of 2006, Civil Appeal No.197 of 2018 has held that a dispute raised
by an employee of a cooperative society challenging the dismissal from service and which cannot be decided under
the Co-Operative Act, then it should be decided by the machinery provided under the I.D. Act as dispute relating
service matter between the employer society and the employee is an industrial dispute.
Therefore, in view of aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present dispute being between
the employers, a Consumer Co-Operative Society and its employee over termination from service squarely falls within
the ambit of industrial dispute. However, the present dispute is in between the employer Haldia Dock Complex
Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd. registered under the State Act i.e. the West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act,
3366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1983 and its retrenched employee Smt. Rinku Shome. Then a question may arise, who is the appropriate government
whether it is Central Govt. or the State Govt.? In case the appropriate government is the State Govt. of West Bengal,
then this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the reference.
Section 2 (a) defines “appropriate government” and which read as follows :-
“appropriate Government” means— (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried
on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway company or [concerning any such
controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] or in relation to an
industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or [the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited
formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Employees‟ State Insurance
Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the
Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees
constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees‟ Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established
under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or [the Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and
Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of
the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3
of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section
3 or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 of the Food
Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or [the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the
Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)], or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of
the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or
the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India [the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the
National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance
company], a mine, an oil field] [ a Cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any company in which not less than
fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not
being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the
Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous
bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and] [(ii) in relation to any
other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the
principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State
Government:
Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the
contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be the
Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial
establishment;].
Gone through the West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act, 2006 and on reading the same it appears
Cooperative Society is an independent democratic organisation controlled by its members and who set the policies and
take decisions. Cooperative Society is governed by its rules and by laws. The Board of Directors manages the affairs
of the cooperative society as per the provision of section 32 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006. In
view of provisions of section 33 of the Act, the State Govt. may also depute Govt. officers to manage the affairs of a
Co-operative Society under certain circumstances. Section 34 of the Act vest power to the Registrar to dissolve and re-
constitute Board of any Co-operative Society or may appoint an Administrator, a State Govt. Official to manage the
affairs of the society. It further appears the State Govt. has the power to issue directives to the cooperative society in
case of dissolution of its Board of Directors, set a date for holding Annual General Meeting, in case the society has not
held the election. The State Govt. has a power to inspect the cooperative society and give necessary directions thereof.
Therefore, it appears the control of State Govt. over the cooperative society is large and extensive.
Further, section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 provides, that the Registrar of co-
operative society is the authority before whom any dispute concerning the management or business or affairs of co-
operative society shall be filed for settlement, except the dispute arising out of a disciplinary action taken by the Co-
operative Society against it paid employee and any dispute relating to election in a co-operative society. Thus, Section
102 excludes the jurisdiction of the Registrar to hear and settle the dispute relating to disciplinary action taken by the
Co-Operative Society against its paid employees. However, the term ‘dispute’ is defined in section 4 (25) of the Act
of 2006 as ‘dispute’ means any matter capable of being subject civil litigation, and includes a claim in respect of any
sum payable to or by a Co-Operative Society. Therefore, reading section 102 and section 4 (25) conjointly, it appears
the dispute arising out of a disciplinary action taken by the Co-Operative Society against its paid employees has to be
filed before a Civil Court. In the present case before an Industrial Tribunal as dispute is in between the employer and
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3367
its employee in respect of termination of service of its paid employee. The ordinary civil court will have jurisdiction
over the matter relating to claims in respect of any sum payable to or by a Co-Operative Society.
It is true the concerned consumer co-operative society is an independent organisation, registered under the
West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 but situated within the Haldia Dock Complex, a Central Govt.
undertaking, but in view of section 2(a) of the I.D.Act, 1947 the appropriate Govt. in the present reference is the State
Govt. i.e. Govt. of West Bengal and not Central Govt. Thus, remedy lies before the State Industrial Tribunal and not
before this Central Industrial Tribunal.
Therefore, this Tribunal holds the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India has wrongly referred the present dispute
arising between the employer and employee of a co-operative society registered under the State Act to this Central
Industrial Tribunal, merely because the co-operative society in question is located within Haldia Dock Complex at
Haldia Port, a Central Govt. Undertaking.
In the above, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the present reference and refrain itself from entering into
the merit of the case and decide on the issue whether termination of Smt. Rinku Shome, a permanent employee of the
Society is legal or not.
Thus the present reference case no. 24 of 2010 is found not maintainable before this Tribunal and an award is
passed accordingly.
K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2023
.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार मैससᭅ
᮰े᳧ िडटेिटव िसयोᳯरटी ᮧाइवेट िलिमटेड, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ कामगार,के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय
सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय- आसनसोल पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 27 OF 2023) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक
मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 12.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[la- ,y-42025-07-2023-187-आईआर (डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27 OF 2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court - Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s. Shresth Detective Security Private Limited, and The Worker, which was received along with soft copy of
the award by the Central Government on 12.09.2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-187-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 27 OF 2023
PARTIES: Tarak Nath Gorai
Vs.
Management of M/s. Shresth Detective Security Pvt. Ltd.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: None.
For the Management:
None.
3368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
INDUSTRY:
Security Service
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
28.08.2023.
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol under
Ministry of Labour, Government of India, vide its Order No. 1(05)/2023/E dated 13.04.2023 has been pleased to refer
the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of M/s. Shresth Detective Security Private
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. Shresth Detective Security Pvt Ltd termination from
service to Sri Tarak Nath Gorai, Ex Security Guard is justified or not? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. 1(05)/2023/E dated 13.04.2023 from the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute Reference case No. 27
of 2023 was registered on 15.05.2023 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post,
directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims
and a list of witnesses.
2.
Notice was issued upon Sri Tarak Nath Gorai, the aggrieved workman and Ex-Security Guard working under
M/s. Shresth Detective Security Private Limited, Durgapur. Director of the company was also notified but none
appeared. On a perusal of report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and Conciliation Officer,
Raniganj at Durgapur under Section 12(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 06.04.2023 reveals that the
management of M/s. Shresth Detective and Securities Private Limited, have terminated their workman Tarak Nath
Gorai from service w.e.f. 01.08.2019 as per instruction of the main contractor M/s. FIS Payment Solutions and
Services India Private Limited, engaged by the principal employer, the Bank of India, Benachity Branch, Durgapur.
Since none of the party appeared on two consecutive dates after issuance of Notice under registered post, the
Reference case is dismissed and a No Dispute Award is drawn up.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent
to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1522.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
अ᭟यᭃ, ᳰद᭨ली मेᮝो रेल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड,मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन, बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली, कू᭡स इंटरनेशनल
हाई टेक िसयोᳯरटी, डीएमआरसी मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन के ठेकेदार,बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली;सीसीईसीसी-
केईसी जेवी डीसी-01, कायाᭅलय: मुंडका, रानी खेड़ा रोड के पास, ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी
मोह᭥मद आिशक, कामगार , के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई
ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया 44/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को
सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-184-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Chairmen, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi, Couops International Hi Tech Security, Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delh ;CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi, and
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3369
Shri Mohammad Ashik, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-184-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present:
Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 44/2022
Date of Passing Award- 16th May,2023
Between:
Mohammad Ashik S/o Mohd Anwarul,
R/o War No. 11, Gram-Dahsil, Post Ratanpur,
Thana, Singhwara, Dahsil Darbhanga, Bihar-847307.
Workman
Versus
1. The Chairmen,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Couops International Hi Tech Security,
Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delh.
3.CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,
Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi-110081.
Managements
Appearances:-
Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld.A/R for the claimant (DLSA)
Shri Akhilesh , LWI, for DMRC.
Sh. Anil Sharma A/R alongwith advocate Sh. Shivam Tripathi, for the mgt no.3.
AWARD
The claimant has filed the application invoking the provision of 2A of the Id. Act alleging illegal termination
of his service by the mgt no. 1 i.e DMRC with a prayer for reinstatement with continuity with service with full back
wages and other consequential benefits including equal pay for equal work for retro respective effect.
The mgt DMRC by filing written statement challenged the maintainability of the proceeding and denying the
employee and employer relationship. The mgt 3 i.e CCECC-KEC JV DC-01 filed written statement denying to have
appointed the claimant at any point of time. The mgt no. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte. During the pendency of the
proceeding a proposal for conciliation and an amicable settlement was given by the parties and pursuant to
conciliation the claimant agreed to received Rs. 83,104/- from the mgt no. 3 towards his full and final settlement.
3370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The claimant gave a statement to the effect that he has received the above said amount from the mgt no. 3
and thus, he has no dispute/claim against any of the mgt of this proceeding. Hence, this no dispute award is being
passed. Hence ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no claim against the managements
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1523.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
पंजाब नेशनल बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (01/2006) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल - L-39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-41]
सलोनी] उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.01/2006) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-41]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Présent : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
Misc. Application. No. 01 OF 2006
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Punjab National Bank.
AND
It’s Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Bank: Absent
On behalf of the Union
: Absent
Dated: 12th July, 2023
ORDER
This is an application under section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 filed by Punjab National Bank
Employees’ Union against the management of Punjab National Bank, alleging that during the pendency of Reference
Case No.7 of 2005, the management of Punjab National Bank has brought changes in the service conditions of its
employees in violation of amalgamation scheme as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the settlement as
circulated vide circular No.1569 dated 06-02-1997 in the matter of determination of seniority.
It has been alleged that S.R.M.O., Calcutta circulated a priority list/ gradation list of its clerical staff
changing the placement of erstwhile New Bank of India Employees to their detriment and without determining their
seniority in view of amalgamation scheme as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as per the terms
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3371
and conditions of the settlement issued under circular no.,1569 dated 06-02-1997 and thereby made the employees of
erstwhile New Bank of India junior placing them in such a position in the gradation list making them ineligible to get
a posting on the post of Special pay and promotion and causing financial loss to them. That due priority list/gradation
list circular dated 21-03-2006, several junior employees have been placed above the senior employees. Therefore, the
union has prayed for passing necessary order.
It has also been contended, that Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide its order no.L-12011/122/2004 IR
(B-II) dated 21-12-2004 referred the issue “whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank,
S.R.M.O., Calcutta to determine the seniority of the erstwhile New Bank of India employees in the matter of posting
in the post carrying special allowance, promotion etc. is violative to the provision of settlement as circulated vide
circular no.1569 dated 06-02-1997 has also the placement scheme dated 08-12-1993 or not? If yes, what remedy the
workmen are entitled to, to this Tribunal for adjudication. From the office record it is seen such reference was
registered as Reference Case No, 7 of 2005 and which was disposed of on 15-09-20015 by passing an award. The
predecessor of this Tribunal has held that ratio of 2:1 is applicable for determination of minimum length of service and
for preparation of priority list/gradation list for counting inter se seniority for the purpose of promotion. Further, held
the allegations of the Union that the management in violation of the terms of placement scheme in preparing the
priority list by not counting the complete months of service of the employees not tenable. That as per the settlement
dated 01-11-1988, while preparing priority list, one mark has to be given for each completed year of service in the
bank in clerical cadre (excluding period of apprenticeship and working in non-clerical post) from the date of
appointment as probationer with a maximum of 25 marks and there is concept of allotting priority marks for
completed months.
Now, by filing the present application under section 33A the Union has alleged the priority list/gradation list
prepared by the management of the Punjab National Bank on 01-01-2006 is illegal, wrong and detrimental to the
employees of New Bank of India which was merged with Punjab National Bank.
In order to determine the dispute involved in the present application, it is necessary to bring on record the
background of the case. New Bank of India which was sustaining loss and was in verge of winding up. The Reserve
Bank of India for the interest of the employees of such Bank advised the Union of India for merge of the same with
Punjab National Bank. The R.B.I. also considered the relevant factors for determination of the inter se seniority of the
employees of both the banks on merger/amalgamation, the ratio 2:1 has been adopted for preparation of priority list in
respect of counting the inter se seniority for the purpose of promotion and posting in the posts carrying special
allowance. Accordingly, Central Govt. framed placement scheme on 8th December, 1993. Such scheme was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4247-50 of 1996. Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld
the scheme and held that ratio 2:1 is applicable for preparing priority list in respect of counting the inter se seniority
for the purpose of promotion and post carrying special allowance. The employees of transferor and transferee bank
will have same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters. In those cases ratio of 2:1 is not applicable.
The Bank in its written objection has alleged that it has to prepare gradation list/ priority list every year. It
has to circulate the priority list on 1st January of every year to fill up the post of Special Assistant and other posts
carrying special pay by determining the inter se seniority of employees of New Bank of India and its original
employees. Such procedure was followed since the amalgamation of NBI with PNB and in accordance with
notification dated 08-12-93 read with settlement dated 01-11.1988.
That the gradation list/priority list circulated on 01-01-2005 was found to be a defective due to error in
sorting by the computer. Consequently no vacancy was filled up on the basis of the said list. Further, it has been
alleged while placing the employees of NBI in the priority list/gradation list, the reduced length of service as per
notification dated 08-12-1993 was not but the date of their joining New Bank of India was taken. Accordingly, the
priority list/gradation list dated 01-01-2005 was rectified on 01-01-2006. The gradation list /priority list dated
01-01-2006 was prepared as per the settlement and placement scheme as interpreted by Supreme Court in Appeal
No.4247-50 of 1996. Thus, it has alleged that there is no change in service conditions of ex-employees of NBI with
PNB.
However, record shows the Union which has failed to pursue the application u/s 33A of the Act filed by it
either by adducing evidence to prove that the priority list or gradation list prepared by the management of Punjab
National Bank on 01-01-2006 was in violation of amalgamation and placement scheme dated 08-12-1993 and
settlement circular no., 1569 dated 06-02-1997. The Union has failed to produce even a single document to show that
the inter se seniority of the ex-employees of New Bank of India in PNB was hampered and affected their promotion
prospect to those post with special pay due to the priority list/gradation list dated 01-01-2006 or that the gradation list
dated 01-01-2006 was prepared illegally.
The Management of the Bank too has failed to pursue the present proceeding like the union/applicant. Thus
this Tribunal has decided to dispose of the case on the basis of available materials on record in view of provision of
Rule 22 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957.
Merely on the basis of an application under section 33A without the allegation made therein being
corroborated by oral and documentairy, evidence this Tribunal is unable to hold that indeed there is a change in the
3372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service condition of the employees of the erstwhile New Bank of India which was merged with Punjab National Bank
in the year 1993.
Accordingly, the application under section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act is dismissed.
The Misc. Application No.1 of 2006 is disposed of.
K. D.BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1524.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
आयुᲦ, उᱫरी ᳰद᭨ली नगर िनगम, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी सूयᭅ ᮧकाश, कामगार,के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-1 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया
116/2021) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42011/12/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, and Shri Surya Prakash, Worker, which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/12/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Present :
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)
(Presiding officer)
CGIT, Delhi-1
ID No.116/2021
Shri Surya Prakash S/o Sh.Jagdish,
Through Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh
Delhi Pradesh, F-2/64, Sultanpuri,
Delhi-110086.
Claimant…
Versus
The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
J.L.Nehru Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Management…
None for the claimant
Shri Om Prakash Singh, AR for the management
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3373
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.42011/12/2021-
IR(DU) dated 30.07.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the services of Sh.Surya Prakash S/o Sh.Jagdish as raised by Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh Delhi
Pradesh vide letter dated 10.01.2019 were terminated by the management of North Delhi Municipal
Corporation in an illegal and arbitrary manner?
If yes, whether Sh.Surya Prakash S/o Sh.Jagdish is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages, alongwith
all consequential benefits? If yes, from which date and what further directions, if any, are necessary in this
regard?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1525.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
अधीᭃक, िवभाग. पो᭭ट ऑटोमेटेड मेल ᮧोसेᳲसंग सᱶटर, इंिडया पो᭭ट मिहपालपुर नई ᳰद᭨ली; मुय पो᭭ट मा᭭टर जनरल
(ᳰद᭨ली सकᭅल) मेघदूत भवन, नई ᳰद᭨ली; संचार मंᮢालय , दूरसंचार िवभाग, अशोक रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के
संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी सनोज कुमार, कामगार , ᳇ारा -अिखल भारतीय जनरल मजदूर ᮝेड यूिनयन, कालकाजी,नई
ᳰद᭨ली,के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-1 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट
(संदभᭅ संया 56/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी
के साथ 19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -40011/5/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Superintendent ,Dept. of Post Automated Mail Processing Centre, India Post Mahipalpur New Delhi ; The
Chief Post Master General (Delhi Circle) Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi ; The Ministry of Communication ,
Dept. of Telecommunication , Ashoka Road, New Delhi, and Shri Sanoj Kumar, Worker, through-All India
General Mazdoor Trade Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-40011/5/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
3374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Present :
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)
(Presiding officer)
CGIT, Delhi-1
ID No.56/2022
Shri Sanoj Kumar S/o Sh.Balveer Singh
Rept. By All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,
170 Bal Mukund Khand,
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110028.
Claimant…
Versus
1.
The Superintendent
Dept. of Post Automated Mail
Processing Centre,
India Post Mahipalpur,
New Delhi – 110 037.
2.
The Chief Post Master General (Delhi Circle)
Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3.
The Ministry of Communication
Dept. of Telecommunication
Sanchar Bhawan, 20,
Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
Management…
None for the claimant
Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Dealing Assistant for Dept. of Post.
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.40011/5/2021-
IR(DU) dated 02.02.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of All India General Trade Union, Delhi vide letter dated 14.12.2020 in respect Sh.Sanoj
Kumar S/o Sh.Balveer to the Superintendent, Dept of Post, Automated Mail Processing Centre, India Post,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi and payment of his dues is proper, legal and justified? If so, to what relief Sh.Bhanu
Pratap is entitled and what directions are necessary in this matter?”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3375
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 25.05.2023
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1526.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
सिचव, सी.बी.एस.ई., िशᭃा कᱶᮤ, 2, सामुदाियक कᱶᮤ,ᮧीत िवहार, ᳰद᭨ली ; मेससᭅ ᳴कंग िसयोᳯरटी गा᭙सᭅ सᳶवᭅसेज
ᮧा. िलिमटेड, मोह᭥मदपुर, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी सिचन तोमर एवं 3 अ᭠य, ᳇ारा -
समाजवादी कमᭅचारी संघ (रिज.), जगतपुरी, ᳰद᭨ली,के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह-
᮰म ᭠यायालय-1 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया 226/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है
जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42011/123/2022-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 226/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Secretary,C.B.S.E., Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi ; M/s King Security Guards
Services Pvt. Ltd., Mohammadpur, New Delhi, and Shri Sachin Tomer & 3 others ,through- Samajwadi
Karamchari Union (Regd.), Jagatpuri, Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/123/2022-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Present :
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)
(Presiding officer)
CGIT, Delhi-1
ID No.226/2022
Shri Sachin Tomer & 3 others
By Samajwadi Karamchari Union (Regd.),
D-212, Gali No.10, Jagatpuri,
Mandoli Road, Delhi-110093.
Claimant…
3376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The Secretary
C.B.S.E., Shiksha Kendra,
# 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
2.
M/s King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.
39-A/102, Near Ram Mandir,
Vill-Mohammadpur,
New Delhi-110 066.
Managements…
None for the claimant
Shri Karan Sokhi, A/R for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.42011/123/2022-IR(DU) dated 27.05.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether Samajwadi Karmchari Union(Reg.) has locus standi to raise ‘industrial dispute’ under ID Act, 1947
i.r.o. Shri Sachin Tomer and 3 others vide letter dated 11.01.2021 against the management of M/s King
Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi (contractor) under Central Board of Secondary Education,
Delhi?
If yes, whether the demand raised by Shri Sachin Tomer and 3 others vide letter dated 11.01.2021 through
Samajwadi Karmchari Union (Reg.) to the management of M/s King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi (contractor) under Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi for reinstatement with continuity of
service alongwith all consequential benefits including full back wages and payment of bonus for the year 2017-
18 and 2018-19, is proper, legal and justified ? If yes, to what relief the disputant workers entitled and what
directions are necessary in the matter ?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 25.05.2023
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1527.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
िनदेशक, रा᳦ीय भवन िनमाᭅण िनगम िलिमटेड,आईएमसी रखरखाव इकाई, लोधी रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली; मैससᭅ अ᭨फा
िसयोᳯरटी एंड अलाइड सᳶवᭅसेज, साउथ एसटᱶशन, पाटᭅ- II, नई ᳰद᭨ली; मैससᭅ अ᭨फ़ा िसयोᳯरटी एंड अलाइड सᳶवᭅसेज,
मालवीय नगर, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी सुरᱶᮤ ᳲसंह, ᳇ारा - कमᭅकार एकता कᱶᮤ (रिज.)
गोᳲवंदपुरी, कालकाजी, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-1
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3377
नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया 19/2020) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42011/137/2020-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director , National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. , IMC Maintenance Unit, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi ; M/s Alfa Security and Allied Services, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi ; M/s Alfa Security and
Allied Services , Malviya Nagar, New Delhi , and Shri Surender Singh , Through- Karamkar Ekta Kendra
(Regd.) Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi ,which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/137/2020-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Present :
Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)
(Presiding officer)
CGIT, Delhi-1
ID No. 19/2020
Shri Surender Singh S/o Sh.Mohan Singh,
Rept. By Karamkar Ekta Kendra (Regd.)
A-704, Transit Camp. (Shaheed Rajiiv Gandhi Colony)
Govindpuri, Kalkaji,
New Delhi – 110019.
Claimant…
Versus
1.
The Director
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.
IMC Maintenance Unit, Intergrated Office Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 023.
2.
M/s Alfa Security and Allied Services
131, 1st Floor, Udai Park, South Extension,
Part-II, New Delhi-110 049.
3.
M/s Alfa Security and Allied Services
K-3/D, Khirki Extension, Near Krishna Temple,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017.
Managements…
None for the claimant
Shri Tushant, AR for the management
3378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No.42011/137/2020-IR(DU) dated 04.01.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the termination of the services of the workman Sh.Surender Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh (Security
Guard) on 04.08.2017 by the Contractor M/s Alfa Security and Allied Services, in the establishment of NBCC,
New Delhi as raised by Karamkar Ekta Kendra (Regd.) vide letter dated 23.04.2019 is proper, legal and
justified ? If not, then whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits
including full back wages ? What other relief, the said workman is entitled to ? What other directions, if any,
are necessary in this matter ?
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 05.06.2023
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1528.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार
मेससᭅ इंजीिनयसᭅ इंिडया िलिमटेड, इंजीिनयसᭅ इंिडया भवन, 1,भीकाजी कामा ᭡लेस, नई ᳰद᭨ली; मेससᭅ जी4एस फैिसिलटी
सᳶवᭅसेज ᮧा. िलिमटेड, ᳇ारका, अतु᭨य चौक, ᳇ारका, सेटर-13 के पास, ᳇ारका मेᮝो ᭭टेशन, नई ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के
संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी राजᱶᮤ ᳲसंह पंवार, ,कामगार , ᳇ारा -ᳰद᭨ली दिलत मजदूर िवकास संगठन (पंजीकृत), नारायण,
नई ᳰद᭨ली, के बीच अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-1 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ
संया 1/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ
19.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42011/102/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s Engineers India Ltd., Engineers India Bhawan, 1, Bhikaji Cama Place,New Delhi ;M/s G4S Facility
Services Pvt. Ltd., Dwarka, Atulaya Chowk, Dwarka, Near Sector-13, Dwarka Metro Station, New Delhi , and
Shri Rajender Singh Panwar, Worker, Through-Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas Sangathan(Regd.) ,Narayan, New
Delhi ,which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42011/102/2021-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3379
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Present : Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)
(Presiding officer)
CGIT, Delhi-1
ID No.1/2022
Shri Rajender Singh Panwar,
Rept. By Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas Sangathan(Regd.)
CB-6, Ring Road, Narayan,
New Delhi-110028.
Claimant…
Versus
1.
M/s Engineers India Ltd.,
Engineers India Bhawan, 1,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110 066.
2.
M/s G4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.227, Block-A, Fist Floor, Sector-17,
Dwarka, Atulaya Chowk, Dwarka
Near Sector-13, Dwarka Metro Station,
New Delhi-110 075.
Managements…
None for the claimant
None for the management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No. 42011/102/2021-IR(DU) dated 02.12.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Sh.Rajender Singh Panwar through Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas Sangathan (Regd.) New
Delhi vide letter dated 31.05.2020 for bonus for three years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 against the management of
G4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd./the Engineers India Ltd. Is proper, legal and justified ? If yes, what relief the disputant
is entitled to and what directions, if any, are necessary in this regard?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in
the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that
the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
3380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against
the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be
sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 05.06.2023
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1529.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार अ᭟यᭃ,
ᳰद᭨ली मेᮝो रेल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड,मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन, बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली,कू᭡स इंटरनेशनल हाई टेक
िसयोᳯरटी,डीएमआरसी मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन के ठेकेदार,बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली;सीसीईसीसी-केईसी जेवी डीसी-
01,कायाᭅलय: मुंडका, रानी खेड़ा रोड के पास, ᳰद᭨ली, , के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी गुलशन कुमार, कामगार , के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया 45/2022) को जैसा ᳰक
अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-189-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Chairmen,Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi, Couops International Hi Tech Security,Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delh ;CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi, and
Shri Gulshan Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 19.09.2023
[No. L-42025-07-2023-189-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
NEW DELHI
Present:
Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 45/2022
Date of Passing Award- 16th May,2023
Between:
Shri Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,
C/o-DSKA, Legal LLP, 34-LGF, Pragati Enclave,
Sant Nagar, North Delhi-110084.
Workman
Versus
1. The Chairmen,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3381
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Couops International Hi Tech Security,
Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
3.CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,
Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi-110081.
Managements
Appearances:-
Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld.A/R for the claimant (DLSA)
Shri Akhilesh , LWI, for DMRC.
Sh. Anil Sharma A/R alongwith advocate Sh. Shivam Tripathi, for the mgt no.3.
AWARD
The claimant has filed the application invoking the provision of 2A of the Id. Act alleging illegal termination
of his service by the mgt no. 1 i.e DMRC with a prayer for reinstatement with continuity with service with full back
wages and other consequential benefits including equal pay for equal work for retro respective effect.
The mgt DMRC by filing written statement challenged the maintainability of the proceeding and denying the
employee and employer relationship. The mgt 3 i.e CCECC-KEC JV DC-01 filed written statement denying to have
appointed the claimant at any point of time. The mgt no. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte. During the pendency of the
proceeding a proposal for conciliation and an amicable settlement was given by the parties and pursuant to
conciliation the claimant agreed to received Rs. 54,880/- from the mgt no. 3 towards his full and final settlement.
The claimant gave a statement to the effect that he has received the above said amount from the mgt no. 3 and
thus, he has no dispute/claim against any of the mgt of this proceeding. Hence, this no dispute award is being passed.
Hence ordered.
Order
The claim be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no claim against the managements
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1530.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार अ᭟यᭃ, ᳰद᭨ली
मेᮝो रेल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड,मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन, बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली,कू᭡स इंटरनेशनल हाई टेक
िसयोᳯरटी,डीएमआरसी मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन के ठेकेदार,बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली;सीसीईसीसी-केईसी जेवी डीसी-
01,कायाᭅलय: मुंडका, रानी खेड़ा रोड के पास, ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी िशक᭠दर पासवान, कामगार , के बीच
अनुबंध मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट(संदभᭅ संया 48/2022) को जैसा ᳰक
अनुलᲨक मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19.09.2023को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-190-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Chairmen,Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,
3382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, Couops International Hi Tech Security,Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delh ;CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi, and
Shri Shikander Paswan, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-190-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
NEW DELHI
Present:
Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 48/2022
Date of Passing Award- 16th May,2023
Between:
Shri Shikander Paswan S/o Sh. Vishnu Paswan,
C/o-DSKA, Legal LLP, 34-LGF, Pragati Enclave,
Sant Nagar, North Delhi-110084.
Workman
Versus
1. The Chairmen,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Couops International Hi Tech Security,
Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
3. CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,
Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi-110081.
Managements
Appearances:-
Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld.A/R for the claimant (DLSA)
Shri Akhilesh , LWI, for DMRC.
Sh. Anil Sharma A/R alongwith advocate Sh. Shivam Tripathi, for the mgt no.3.
AWARD
The claimant has filed the application invoking the provision of 2A of the Id. Act alleging illegal termination
of his service by the mgt no. 1 i.e DMRC with a prayer for reinstatement with continuity with service with full back
wages and other consequential benefits including equal pay for equal work for retro respective effect.
The mgt DMRC by filing written statement challenged the maintainability of the proceeding and denying the
employee and employer relationship. The mgt 3 i.e CCECC-KEC JV DC-01 filed written statement denying to have
appointed the claimant at any point of time. The mgt no. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte. During the pendency of the
proceeding a proposal for conciliation and an amicable settlement was given by the parties and pursuant to
conciliation the claimant agreed to received Rs. 50,058/- from the mgt no. 3 towards his full and final settlement.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3383
The claimant gave a statement to the effect that he has received the above said amount from the mgt no. 3 and
thus, he has no dispute/claim against any of the mgt of this proceeding. Hence, this no dispute award is being passed.
Hence ordered.
Order
The claim be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no claim against the managements
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID
act 1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1531.—औ᳒ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, (1947 का 14) कᳱ धारा 17 के अनुसरण मᱶ, के᭠ᮤीय सरकार अ᭟यᭃ, ᳰद᭨ली
मेᮝो रेल कॉपᲃरेशन िलिमटेड,मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन, बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली,कू᭡स इंटरनेशनल हाई टेक
िसयोᳯरटी,डीएमआरसी मेᮝो भवन, फायर िᮩगेड लेन के ठेकेदार,बाराखंभा रोड, नई ᳰद᭨ली; सीसीईसीसी-केईसी जेवी डीसी-
01,कायाᭅलय: मुंडका, रानी खेड़ा रोड के पास, ᳰद᭨ली, के ᮧबंधतंᮢ के संब िनयोजकᲂ और ᮰ी कमलेश कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध
मᱶ िन᳸दᭅ᳥ के᭠ᮤीय सरकार औ᳒ोिगक अिधकरण- सह- ᮰म ᭠यायालय-2 नई ᳰद᭨ली पंचाट (संदभᭅ संया 46/2022) को जैसा ᳰक अनुलᲨक
मᱶ ᳰदखाया गया है,ᮧकािशत करती है जो के᭠ᮤीय सरकार को सॉ᭢ट कॉपी के साथ 19.09.2023 को ᮧा᳙ ᱟआ था l
[सं. एल -42025-07-2023-191-आईआर(डीयू)]
डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to The Chairmen,Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi, Couops International Hi Tech Security,Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delh ;CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi, and
Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 19.09.2023.
[No. L-42025-07-2023-191-IR (DU)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
NEW DELHI
Present:
Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 46/2022
Date of Passing Award- 16th May,2023
Between:
Sh . Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Gori, Shankar,
R/o A-63, Bhagat Singh Part, Siraspur,
North Delhi-110084.
Workman
3384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1. The Chairmen,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Couops International Hi Tech Security,
Contractor of DMRC Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delh.
3. CCECC-KEC JV DC-01,
Office : Mundka, Near Rani Khera Road, Delhi-110081.
Managements
Appearances:-
Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld.A/R for the claimant (DLSA)
Shri Akhilesh , LWI, for DMRC.
Sh. Anil Sharma A/R alongwith advocate Sh. Shivam Tripathi, for the mgt no.3.
AWARD
The claimant has filed the application invoking the provision of 2A of the Id. Act alleging illegal termination
of his service by the mgt no. 1 i.e DMRC with a prayer for reinstatement with continuity with service with full back
wages and other consequential benefits including equal pay for equal work for retro respective effect.
The mgt DMRC by filing written statement challenged the maintainability of the proceeding and denying the
employee and employer relationship. The mgt 3 i.e CCECC-KEC JV DC-01 filed written statement denying to have
appointed the claimant at any point of time. The mgt no. 2 has been proceeded ex-parte. During the pendency of the
proceeding a proposal for conciliation and an amicable settlement was given by the parties and pursuant to
conciliation the claimant agreed to received Rs. 54,096/- from the mgt no. 3 towards his full and final settlement.
The claimant gave a statement to the effect that he has received the above said amount from the mgt no. 3 and
thus, he has no dispute/claim against any of the mgt of this proceeding. Hence, this no dispute award is being passed.
Hence ordered.
Order
The claim be and the same is disposed of as the claimant has no claim against the managements
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1532.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
यूिनयन बᱹक ऑफ इंिडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a35/2014) izdkfशr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/-14-2014-आईआर(बी-II]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3385
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 35/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/14/2014-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO.35 OF 2014
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
Union Bank of India
AND
It’s Workman
Appearance:
On behalf of the Management: Absent
On behalf of the Workman: Absent
Dated: 20th July, 2023
AWARD
Today too the workman Sri Raju Sikdar fails to appear and files show cause.
None appears from the side of the management of Union Bank of India when the matter is called.
Therefore, in view of provisions of Rule 22 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957, this Tribunal
decided to dispose of the present reference on the basis of the materials on record.
By order No. LO-12012/14/2014-IR (B –II) dated 02-04-2014 the Central Govt., Ministry of Labour in
exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the
following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-
“Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India by terminating the service of workman
Sri Raju Sikdar without following statutory rules and regulations is justified or not? What relief the workman is
entitled for?”
The record shows initially both the workman and management had put their appearance and filed their
respective pleadings, but latter both have stopped pursuing the dispute.
However, the workman in its written statement of claim has stated that the bank was in urgent need of one
Peon at its branch office at Jahannagar Branch, District- Burdwan. The workman was an unemployed local youth and
as such he applied for the said post.
That after selection process he was appointed by the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Jahannagar
Branch sometime in the year 2000. That he was appointed in a temporary post with the specific assurance that in due
course he would be made a permanent staff. On such assurance he used to perform the duty of a Peon/Group-D with
utmost sincerity and honesty. He rendered continuous service without any break to the full satisfaction of the
employer.
The workman was enrolled in the Employment Exchange and as such the Branch Manager, Jahannagar
Branchy issued a certificate on 14-08-2001 confirming his service to the bank along with his experience, to the
Employment Exchange.
That he was paid wages by the bank some time by vouchers and sometimes by bearer cheques. All on a
sudden his job was terminated w.e.f. 01-03-2012.
Challenging such illegal termination he made a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central), Kolkata. The conciliation having failed, Ministry of Labour referred the present dispute. Therefore, he has
prayed for his reinstatement, absorption, regularisation in the post of Group-D and for any other relief to which he is
entitled to.
3386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The bank in its written statement has alleged that the present reference is not maintainable as there exists no
relationship of employer and employee between the bank and the alleged workman Sri Raju Sikdar.
The bank is a nationalised bank and it is governed by its own recruitment policy. In order to fill up vacancy
against a sanctioned Group-D post, it has to notify the vacancy and give indent to the Employment Exchange. The
post is filled up through selection process.
The Branch Manager is not a competent authority or an authorised person to make any recruitment in the
cadre of Group-D, but he enjoys certain discretionary power to engage certain persons on casual and temporary basis.
The concerned workman was casually engaged by the Branch Manager to do the casual nature of works. That he was
never selected through selection process to work in the post of temporary or casual Group-D. Thus it has prayed for
dismissal of the reference.
Unfortunately, the alleged workman has failed to substantiate and prove his claim and case by adducing oral
evidence and producing documentary evidence. In fact in the record apart from pleadings of the parties of both sides
there is no substantial evidence to corroborate their respective contentions. From the averments made in the claim
statement of the workman it appears that he used to work in the Union Bank of India, Jahannagar Branch as a
temporary/casual workman since 2000 till 2012. Therefore, he has prayed for his regularisation and reinstatement in
the same job.
The Union Bank of India being a nationalised bank it is governed by recruitment rules and regulations. That
in order to fill up a sanctioned post it has to follow the procedure laid down in the recruitment rules and regulations to
which it is governed. Normally, it has to notify the vacancy arising out of the sanction posts through paper publication
or call for eligible candidates through Employment Exchange. Then those candidates whose applications have been
accepted have to go through selection process such as written examination, interview and physical fitness test.
Therefore a casual workman or temporary workman engaged by bank too has to go through the above
mentioned procedure in order to get recruitment to the sanctioned post of Group-D and provided he possesses the
requisite educational qualification and the age.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Secretary, State of Karnata –vs- Uma Devi & Ors. held Public
employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the
laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities
on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has
provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public employment has to
be in terms of the constitutional scheme. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in the country
and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily
wages. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a
particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner
or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule. That regularisation cannot be
mode of recruitment.
In view of the above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), the present
reference case filed by the temporary casual workman of a bank cannot be entertained and not maintainable.
Therefore, this Tribunal holds that Sri Raju Sikdar being a temporary casual workman engaged by the Branch
Manager, Union Bank of India, Jahannagar Branch cannot be considered to be an employee of the bank and as such
the question of his termination also does not arise.
That apart no evidence have come on record to show that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
year in the bank.
Therefore, the workman Sri Raju Sikdar is not entitled to get any relief as sought.
The Reference Case No. 35 of 2014 is disposed of and award to that effect is passed.
K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1533.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
हि᭨दया डॉक कॉ᭥᭡लेस ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a21/2008) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-32011/4/-2008-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3387
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.21/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Haldia Dock Complex and their
workmen.
[No. L-32011/4/2008-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 21 OF 2008
Parties : Employer in relation to the management of
Haldia Dock Complex
AND
It’s Workman/Union
Appearance:
On behalf of Haldia Dock Complex: Mr. J.Barik, Advocate.
On behalf of the Union/Workman:
Mr. L. C. Halder, Advocate.
Dated: 10th July, 2023.
AWARD
By Order No L-32011/4/2008 (IR)(B-II) dated 05-09-2008, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
excise of the power conferred under sub section 1(d) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: –
“Whether the action of the Management of the Haldia Dock Complex in not promoting Mr. Mahadeb Rana,
USL (PD) of M.O. Division to the next higher post of Lascar or Linesman is justified? What relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
The facts giving rise to this reference in gist is that the workman Sri Mahadeb Rana, was appointed as a
Gangman (unskilled labour) under INCF Division of Haldia Dock Complex on 03-12-1992. Finding no promotional
opportunity in INCF Division, the workman applied for the post of Unskilled Labour at Port Diving Unit and he
joined such post. Though being an unskilled labour at Port Diving Unit, the workman was made to work as a Lascar,
the post of which was lying vacant. He was also asked to work as Linesman in place of deceased Pinaki Mohan Panda
in the year 2003 in addition to his own duty.
That the workman having all the qualification of a Lascar he was not given the promotional post, rather the
management illegally appointed one contractor’s workman as Linesman in September, 2005 by depriving the
promotional opportunity to the existing qualified workmen. The promotion of the concerned workman to the post of
Lascar was due on 16-03-2003 after completion of three years as unskilled labour (P.D.). By engaging a contractor
employee in the post of Lascar, the management had taken a plea the concerned workman was given financial benefits
by granting Assured Career Progression (A.C.P).
That in view of clause 31 of the wage settlement dated 2nd August, 2000 the workman belonging to Class –III
and Class-IV of Haldia Dock Complex are entitled to A.C.P. as per provision of the scheme therein.
The ACP was made operational from 9th August, 1999 to grant two financial up gradation to Group B, C and
D employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service respectively. The ACP scheme is not
applicable to Group-A Central Services (Technical/Non-Technical) staff. That Casual employees (including
temporary on adhoc and contract employees are not eligible for benefits of ACP. However, the scheme will not affect
the normal promotional avenues available to the employees on the basis of the scheme. Therefore, the workman has
prayed for promotion to the post of Lascar or Linesman from the date to which he has become eligible.
3388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The management in its written statement has alleged the reference is not maintainable as same is suffers from
infirmities. The workman cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. The promotion of a workman depends upon the
availability of vacancy, requirement and subject to suitability and eligibility. The requirement, seniority and
promotion of the employees of Haldia Dock Complex are governed by provisions as contained in Calcutta Port Trust
Employees’ ( Haldia Dock Complex) (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1985. That
as
per
regulation the post of Lascar is filled up from the post of unskilled labour of Port Diving Unit and the post of
Linesman is to be filled up from the post of Lascar. The Unskilled Labour under Port Diving Unit can also opt for
career progression to the post of Marine Hand Gr.II, Bhandary, Greaser and Cook-cum-Boy as per Recruitment Rules.
The concerned workman had no requisite experience necessary for promotion to the post of Lascar, but when he
acquired requisite experience at that time the post of Lascar was already abolished for same being remained vacant for
more than one year.
The job of Linesman is to monitor the life line as well as attending the diver as per requirement and also for
constant vigilance on the air panel, compressor operator. The job of Dress Diver is overall supervision of the diving
operation.
The concerned workman, an unskilled labour under Port Diving Unit of M.O. Division of Haldia Dock
Complex has not been deployed on the official capacity for the job of Linesman being unskilled labour of Port Diving
Unit. That Sri Patra senior to Sri Rana was a Linesman and he has no relation with the present case.
If no departmental candidate is available in that event the post can be filled up from the outside candidate.
That Sri Rana had no requisite qualification at the material point of time for the post of Lascar and as such his
application was not considered.
The concerned workman has already been given financial benefit by giving him benefits of A.C.P. Therefore,
it has prayed for rejection of the appeal.
The concerned workman to prove his claim has examined himself as W.W. No. 1. He has also examined Sri
Ashok Kumar Manna, Secretary of his union as W.W. No. 2. That Union/workman has produced 11 (eleven)
documents which have been marked as Exhibit-W/1 to W/11.
On the other hand the management of Haldia Dock Complexed examined one Sri Falguni Mondal as M.W.
No.1 and its Sr. Deputy Manager (Personal and Industrial Relation Division) as M.W. No.2. That 5 (five) documents
have been produced by the management which have been marked as Exhibit-M/1 to Exhibit- M/5 and of them are
irrelevant as those are notifications with regard to promotion of employees who belong to selection posts, Doctors,
administrative posts and managerial posts.
After going through the documents that have been produced by the parties and the oral evidence of witnesses,
admittedly Sri Mahadeb Rana joined Haldia Dock Complex as an unskilled workman in the capacity of Gangman on
03-12-1992 under the I&CF Division. Later he for career progression opted as an unskilled labour in Port Diving Unit
of Marine Operation Division in Haldia Dock Complex on 16-03-2000. In the said division there was a scope of
promotion of an unskilled labourer to the post of Lascar and thereafter to the post of Linesman.
It is also an admitted fact for the purpose of promotion of an unskilled labourer in Port Diving Unit to a
higher post one has to complete a period of three years of service in the said post and on acquiring requisite
experience an unskilled labourer is promoted to the post of Lascar.
The workman in his evidence in cross admitted that he joined Port Diving Unit on 16-03-2000. Therefore, in
view of the above admitted facts with regard to promotion to the next higher post, he becomes eligible for promotion
on completion of three years in the said feeder post.
M.W. No.1 and M.W. No.2 have stated that when the post of Lascar fell vacant at that time the concerned
workman had no requisite experience for promotion but when he acquired the qualifications and experience the post
of Lascar was already abolished in view of Central Government, Ministry of Shipping letter No.PR-12016/18/2000-
PE-1 dated 19-11-2001 (Exhibit-M/2). There was an order that all posts lying vacant for more than a year to be
treated as abolished as per the instructions of the Ministry of Finance and a detail report of all posts lying vacant for
more than one year along with a certificate those posts have already been abolished was called for by the Ministry.
Exhibit-M/3 shows that an unskilled labourer of Port Diving Unit having a minimum of three years of
experience in that post and who is able to carry out all types of unskilled jobs including handling diving goods and to
assist divers in diving job on shore and afloat shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Lascar.
Therefore, it becomes clear the concerned workman was eligible for promotion to the post of Lascar only
after 16-03-2003. However, the workman in his cross examination admitted that promotional post of Lascar was
already abolished in the year 2002 and as such he was given higher scale under ACP scheme. Thus, it appears when
the workman was eligible for the post of Lascar on 16-03-2003 at that time the post of Lascar was already abolished in
view of the direction of the Govt. as given in Exhibit-M/2.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3389
Further, Exhibit-M/5 dated 19-09-2005 shows that the concerned workman had executed an undertaking for
grant of benefit of ACP Scheme and he had undertaken that he would continue to discharge the duties and
responsibilities of the lower post till subsequent regular promotion, if any, to the higher post. That his acceptance of
the benefit under ACP scheme shall be deemed to be his unqualified acceptance for regular promotion, if any, on
occurrence of vacancy subsequently.
M.W. No. 1 in his evidence has stated that abolished post are revived some times but without going through
the official record he is unable to say whether the post of Lascar has been revived or not. He has also stated the
concerned workman being an unskilled labour had opportunity to be promoted to some other posts apart from Lascar
and Linesman and which he did not avail.
W.W. No.2 Sri Ashok Kumar Manna, Secretary of the Union, in his cross examination admitted that
concerned workman was given benefit of ACP and modified ACP scheme. He has further admitted promotion
depends on the vacancy and also on requirement. A person working as an unskilled labour can apply for promotion to
the post of Cook, Bhandary and Marine Hand Grade-II, but has to appear in examination. The concerned workman
applied for the above promotional post and he was also selected. He has also stated Linesman is the post higher than
Lascar. Sri Rabindranath Patra was promoted to the post of Linesman. The management started appointing Linesman
on contractual basis. The concerned workman Sri Mahadeb Rana had no experience of diving. Such evidence of the
Secretary of the Union too does not support the case of the concerned workman.
From the above discussion it appears, the concerned workman became eligible for promotion to the post of
Lascar in the year 2003 after completion of three years’ service as an unskilled labour in Port Diving Unit, but the post
of Lascar was already abolished in the year 2002. That concerned workman was given benefit of ACP for not being
promoted in time to the next higher level. It has also come on record, the concerned workman had qualified to the
higher post of Cook, Bhandary and Marine Hand Grade-II but he did not join those post and for which he was given
second ACP benefit also. It is also seen an employee Mr. Patra, senior to the concerned workman was already posted
as a Linesman on the death of Pinaki Mohan Panda in the year 2003. Thus, the demand of promotion to the next
higher post of Lascar and Linesman by Sri Mahadeb Rana, the workman is not justified. No illegality being
committed by the management of Haldia Dock Complex in not promoting Sri Mahadeb Rana to the post of Lascar,
which was already abolished when the concerned workman had acquired requisite qualification. There is no merit in
the reference. Accordingly, Reference No.21 of 2008 is dismissed and award is passed.
K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1534.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सᱶᮝल बᱹक ऑफ इंिडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a06/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-II)-23]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen.
[F. No. L-39025/01/2023-IR (B-II)-23]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
CGIT-06 OF 2019
Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta …….. Applicant/Employee
Versus
Central Bank of India
… Opp. Parties
3390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance
:
On behalf of the Appellant
: Mr. Suvadip Bhattacharjee Advocate
On behalf of Opp.Party
: Absent
Date: 25th July, 2023.
AWARD
This is an application under 2A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 filed by Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta
against Central Bank of India, challenging his illegal termination from the work of a Driver, for his reinstatement with
full back wages.
It is the case of the workman that he was engaged by the Central Bank of India to drive its official vehicle
since 2003. That he sincerely and diligently discharged his duty without any break till his termination from the month
of April, 2017. That he was not given any appointment letter by the bank. The payment was made to him regularly
showing him as a personal driver of the Branch Manager. That he was paid travelling expenses, uniform allowance
etc. by the bank. That he made several prayers before the management of the bank for his regularisation and
absorption in the permanent post, but such prayers were never heard by the management. That his service was
terminated w.e.f. April, 2017 without following the due process of law. Hence, this case.
The record shows the management of the bank has failed to put appearance despite due service of notice
upon it. Therefore, management of the bank has been proceeded exparte.
The workman to prove his case and claim has examined himself as W.W. No.1. The documents produced by
him have been marked as Exhibit W/1 to W/15.
It is the case of the workman that he was a Driver of the vehicle owned by Central Bank of India and having
put continuous service of more than 14 years, he should be considered an employee of bank and his service cannot be
terminated without following due process of law.
Perused the Exhibit-W/14, the Log Book of staff car of Central Bank of India and prima facie it is seen that
there was a vehicle numbered WB-02K-4269 and WB-02AA-6204 and those two vehicles used to driven by
Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta for the period from 13-07-2009 to 09-02-2010 and from 11-07-2012 to 27-08-2012 and from
16-01-2016 to 01-07-2016. The Exhibit-W/14 also contains entries from 10-02-2010 to 15-12-2011, but there is no
mention of the number of the vehicle to which those entries relate. Further, signatures of the Driver appearing against
those entries do not appear to be that of Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta.
It is very interesting to note the concerned workman has failed to produce Registration Certificates of those
two vehicles mentioned in the Log Book to prove those two vehicles were /are owned by the bank and used as a staff
car or for the use of the officials of the bank. Therefore, Log Book ipso-facto does not prove the vehicles mentioned
therein are/were owned by the bank.
Now a days it is seen the Govt. offices, banks and other institutions/ establishments using hired vehicles for
its official use and purpose. The driver of the hired vehicle is provided by the actual owner of the vehicle and it is not
the responsibility of the offices, banks etc. to engage a driver for hired vehicle or vehicle used on rental basis. In the
absence of Registration Certificates of those two vehicles this Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the
workman that he was engaged by the bank to drive the above mentioned two vehicles.
Further, it is mandatory for the banks or the Govt. offices who uses hired vehicles for official purposes to
maintain Log Book for the purpose of preparation of bills towards daily hire charge and for payment towards fuel or
for issuance of fuel slips if the Govt. offices and banks have contract to supply fuel to the hired vehicles. The Log
Book need to be signed by the concerned staff or by the officer using the same. Therefore, this Tribunal is of view,
Log Book is not sufficient to prove the concerned workman was engaged by bank to drive its vehicles.
Exhibit –W/8, W/9 and W/10 being certificates issued by the authorities of the bank though not proved by the
author of those certificates show that Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta used to drive the vehicle provided to them as their
personal driver. They nowhere stated that Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta used to drive the vehicles owned by bank for the
use of its Managers. So, an inference can be drawn Sri Surersh Kumar Gupta was a driver of a vehicle hired for the
use of the Managers of the bank.
Exhibit-W/4 (collectively) are the cash vouchers, petty cash slips of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 which
show that Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta used to work some time as a Driver of Recovery Department, driver of Mr.
Debnath, Assistant General Manager, Driver of vehicle no. WB-02K-4269 of Recovery Deptt.
But petty cash slips of the year 2013 show Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta was paid a sum of money ranging from
Rs.10/- to Rs.140/- for doing different kind of jobs at Central Bank of India, Barabazar Branch, such as sweeping job,
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3391
for parking car, delivery of letters, extra works at Staff Deptt. in the absence of regular staff Sri Suprabh Nabu etc.
That pay slip shows that Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta was basically engaged to do sundry jobs in the year 2013.
No doubt the cash vouchers show that he was paid Rs.1,000/- on 05-12-2011 towards the charge of the fuel
of Car No. WB-02K-4269. That he was paid Rs.700/- towards late hours duty in the month of July, 2009 and for car
washing allowance. He was paid Rs.110/- towards the change of Clutch Wire with fitting charge of the vehicle No.
WB-02K 4269 on 02-11-2011 and such payment was made to him by Central Bank of India, Zonal Office.
Exhibit-W/4(collectively) prima facie show that he used to do sundry jobs of Barabazar Branch of Central
Bank of India in the year 2013 and in the year 2009 to 2011 he used to drive the vehicle of Recovery Deptt. of Central
Bank of India, Zonal Office. Exhibit-W/4 (collectively) prima facie prove that the alleged workman used to do casual
nature of works as and when his service was required by the bank.
Non-production of Log Book by the workman for the year 2013 and he being engaged to do sundry job in
Barabazar Branch in the year 2013, give rise to an inference that when he was not engaged as a driver of hired
vehicles of the bank, then he was engaged by the bank to do the sundry work at its Barabazar Branch.
That Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta being a driver of a hired vehicle or of a rented vehicle of the bank, question of
his retrenchment or termination of his service by the bank does not arise.
That apart the bank being a nationalised bank it is governed by the recruitment rules and regulations and it
cannot give appointment against a sanctioned vacant post without following the recruitment rules. Sri Suresh Kumar
Gupta has failed to prove that in the bank there was a sanctioned post of Driver and which was lying vacant at the
relevant period of time. That in place of such vacancy his service was availed by the bank as a driver. That no person
can claim regularisation or absorption in a permanent service of a bank merely doing a casual nature of work.
It is not the case of the workman that he used to do some other works for the bank as reflected from Exhibit-
W/4, but those documents do not prove that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year as a daily rated
casual worker. Rather, it is his case that he all along since 2003 worked as a Driver in the official vehicle of the bank
and which he has failed to prove.
Having regards to the aforesaid discussion this Tribunal holds the concerned alleged workman failed to prove
that he was engaged by Central Bank of India as a casual driver to drive the vehicles owned by them.
Therefore, the alleged concerned workman is not entitled regularisation or absorption in the permanent post
in bank. Further he being a driver of a hired vehicle of the bank, the bank has no authority to terminate his service or
to comply provision of section 25 of Industrial Dispute Act.
Thus, CGIT-06 of 2019 is dismissed and award is passed accordingly.
K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1535.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj सᱶᮝल बᱹक ऑफ इंिडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (07/2008) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/129/2007-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen.
[F. No. L-12011/129/2007-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 07 OF 2008
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Central Bank of India.
AND
It’s Workman
Appearance:
On behalf of Central Bank of India: Mr. Biswambhar Jha, Advocate.
On behalf of the Workman: Mr. Dilip Chatterjee, Secretary of the
Union.
Dated: 12th July, 2023
AWARD
By Order No L-12011/129/2007 (IR)(B-II) dated 07-03-2008, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of the power conferred under sub section 10 (1) (d) and 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred
the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: –
“Whether the action of punishment of bringing down the lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages
imposed on Sri Milan Kumar Mondal by the Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank of India,
Regional Office (South), Calcutta vide order No. 28-10-2006 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to?”
The facts giving rise to the present case in gist are that the concerned workman while he was posted at
Mominpur Branch as a Clerk during the period from 03-03-2002 to 29-08-2005, it was found that he had committed
misconduct in violation of Clauses 5(a), 5(e), 5(j) and 5(l) of bipartite settlement dated 10-04-2002 i.e. for engaging in
any trade or business outside the scope of duties except with prior permission; willful insubordination or disobedience
of any lawful and reasonable order; doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and abatement or instigation of
any of the act mentioned above. Therefore he was charge sheeted for such misconduct on 27-03-2006.
The primary allegation against him was that while he was posted at Mominpur Branch he had favoured M/s.
Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. of which his wife Smt. Reba Mondal was one of the directors or that he was engaged by said
M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. to operate its accounts as transpired by using cheque Nos. 24514 to 24550 of his
personal Overdraft A/c. No.12371 as cheque of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd.’s C.D. A/c. No.11652. Opening several
accounts in the joint names of his family members and making deposit disproportionate to his known source of
income as a bank clerk or by withdrawing cash from the account of the said company by getting the account payee
cheque cancelled by his wife alone instead by two directors as per the documents filed by the company in the Bank.
The management being not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the concerned workman initiated a
domestic enquiry against him appointing Mr. N.N. Roy, Branch Manager, New Alipur Road as Enquiry Officer and
Sri P.K. Ekka, Assistant Manager, Barisha Branch as Presenting Officer.
The workman was allowed to engage Sri Abani Kumar Banerjee, one of the employees of the bank and as
well the Secretary of the Union as his representative in the domestic enquiry.
The management has examined Sri Dibakar Das, Assistant Manager, as M.W. No.1, Sri Jahar Prasad Dey,
Dy. Manager of Mominpur Branch as M.W. No.2 and Sri Ranjan Kumar Moitra, Assistant Manager, Ballygunge
Branch as M.W. No.3. Several documents relating to different bank accounts of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd.,
cheques issued in favour of the concerned workman by the bank against his O.D. A/c. No. 12371 which was used by
him as cheques of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd.’s C.D. A/c. No. 11652 and other related bank papers were produced.
The representative of the workman was allowed to cross examine the management witnesses.
No evidence in defense has been adduced by the concerned workman.
That Enquiry Officer after taking into consideration both the oral and documentary evidence that have been
adduced from the side of the management held the concerned workman guilty to the charge and submitted his report
and copy of which was duly served to the concerned workman.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3393
The Disciplinary authority after considering the representation of the workman concurred and upheld the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereby proposed to impose the punishment by bringing down the scale of pay by
two stages. The concerned workman against such order of punishment, preferred an appeal before the appellate
authority but his appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. Therefore, he has raised an industrial dispute before
the concerned authority. Hence the present reference.
It has been alleged by the workman the enquiry report is perverse. No substantive evidence could be
produced by the presenting officer against the charges brought against him, but the enquiry officer ignored the fact
that he had acted honestly for the benefit of the bank, ignored the failure on the part of the presenting officer to
produce documents to prove his engagement by M/s Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd., appreciate the entire evidence of
management witnesses properly and ignored the fact that due to alleged misconduct of the workman no financial loss
was suffered by the bank and have come to the wrong findings on the basis of surmise and conjecture.
That management has failed to prove his signature and handwriting on the disputed documents of the said
company. He had encashed account payee bearer cheques of the company though same may be cancelled by one of
the Directors (his wife) of the company but due to his such act no financial loss has been caused to the bank or no case
of fraud was registered by the concerned authority of the bank against him. The management in order to save the
cashier has made this workman as an escape goat.
He has further alleged the amount deposited in MMDC account was transferred transaction from one of his
family members and such money did not belong to him. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside the punishment, to
pay back monitory losses suffered by him for bringing down his pay scale by two stages and disciplinary action
against the Disciplinary Authority for misusing his power.
The bank in its written statement has categorically stated the departmental enquiry was properly held against
the workman and who fully participated in the proceeding with the help of a defence representative of his choice and
who had cross examined the witnesses produced by the management. That departmental enquiry was held fairly by
following the principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer has rightly held the concerned workman guilty to the
charge. Therefore, it has alleged that there is no merit in the present reference and prayed for dismissal of the same.
The workman in order to prove the report of enquiry is perverse has examined himself as W.W. No.1. That
he has produced sixteen documents which have been marked as Exhibit W-1 to W.16.
The management has examined Sri Nityananda Roy, Enquiry Officer and Sri Prafull Kumar Ekka, Presenting
Officer as M.W. No.1 and M.W. No.2 to prove proper enquirer was held against the workman and report is proper and
correct.
The concerned workman in his statement of claim as well as in his evidence has challenged the finding of the
Enquiry Officer and the decision taken by the disciplinary authority to punish him by reducing his pay scale by two
stages. He has nowhere challenged the validity of the domestic enquiry.
That apart the Exhibit-W/1 to W/16 the records of the domestic enquiry or departmental proceeding prima
facie proves adherence of the principal of natural justice by the management while conducting the enquiry against the
charge brought against the concerned workman.
It is settled law when a proper enquiry has been held by an employer and the finding of misconduct is
plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in
judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body.
From the evidence of management witnesses examined during domestic enquiry and as well as from the
evidence of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer recorded by the Tribunal prove that concerned workman while he
was posted at Mominpur Branch had an O.D. A/c. No.12371. It has also come that cheque No.24514 to 24550 of the
said personal account of the concerned workman was used by him for doing transactions in connection with C.D. A/c.
No.11652 of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd., a company in which his wife was one of the Directors and he appears to
had made entry in the Ledger Folio. Further, he in his claim statement has admitted that he had withdrawn cash
through A/c. Payee Cheques of M/s.Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. which were cancelled only by his wife, one of the
Directors of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. instead of any two Directors of the company as required to authenticate any
material alterations in the A/c. payee cheques. The concerned workman has also admitted that while he was posted in
Mominpur Branch he had opened several accounts jointly with his family members but stated funds in those accounts
were transferred by his family members and that money did not belong to him. But he has failed to mention the source
of income of his family members to transfer money in the joint account beyond the known source of salary income of
the workman. Such facts prima facie prove misconduct on the part of the concerned workman and he could indulged
in the above mentioned misconduct just because he was a clerical staff of the branch at the relevant time.
However, the Presenting Officer in his evidence before this Tribunal admitted that he could not produce any
documents to show concerned workman was employed by M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd.
3394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India & others Vs.
Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & others, AIR 2007 SC 2091, has been defined and interpreted
the expression "misconduct" means breach of discipline, all though it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively
as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, wide enough to include wrongful omission or
commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means "improper behaviour,
intentional wrong doing on deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour". Misconduct is a transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand, it is a
violation of definite law or a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness. Misconduct, even if it is an offence under the
Indian Penal Code, is equally misconduct.
Further, in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable, AIR 1992 SC 2188 (Three-
Judge Bench) and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Rinku alias Hakku Vs. State of UP, 2000(2) AWC 1446
(Allahabad High Court : Full Bench) have observed "the word `misconduct' though not capable of precise definition,
its reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the
discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour,
unlawful behaviour, willful in character, forbidden act, and a transgression of established and definite rule of action or
code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty, the act
complained of bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter
and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to
serve.
The activities of the concerned workman as discussed and mentioned above squarely falls within the ambit of
misconduct as defined and interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions. The workman has
contended that his act of using his personal cheques for the account of third person, withdrawing cash against A/c.
payee cheques of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. by getting the words “A/c. Payee” cancelled or pen through by his
wife, one of the Directors of the said company and depositing money in the bank in the joint account of himself and
his family member beyond his known source give rise to a presumption that he was indeed one of the anonymous
Directors of the company and his wife was only a Director for the name sake as because he being a permanent
employee of the bank cannot indulge himself in any trade or business.
It is very pertinent to mention here that workman in his written argument filed on 09-11-2019 in para 6 stated
that the account of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. was opened under the supervision of Mr. Ranjan Mohan Moitra, the
then Assistant Manager of Mominpur Branch and documents on record marked as W/1 to W/16 on 26-06-2012 clearly
prove the said account of the company was opened six days before the incorporation of the said company and without
essential documents needed for the opening of the account after being monetarily benefitted by the company every
month to Mr. Ranjan Mohan Moitra, M.W. No.3 of departmental enquiry. That Mr. Moitra was paid Rs.12,556/-,
Rs.7,030/-, Rs.5,871/- and Rs.4,418/- from cheques no. 651, 1853, 091465 and 092977 dated 07-03-2005, 12-04-
2005, 10-05-2005 and 13-06-2005 respectively. Such disclosure by the concerned workman further give rise to a
presumption of his involvement in opening of an illegal account of M/s. Zen Net Vision Pvt. Ltd. in which on paper
his wife was /is one of the Directors. If he had not been an employee of the bank at the relevant time he would not
have been able to open such illegal account by influencing his superior. Further, he is found guilty of indulging in
malpractice in opening of an illegal account of the company owned by one of his family members or whose one of the
Directors was his wife.
It has been submitted on behalf of the workman that alleged act of Sri Milan Kumar Mondal was not
prejudicial to the interest of the bank as he has not caused any financial loss to the bank. But this Tribunal is of view
causing no financial loss to the bank is not sufficient to absolve the workman from the guilt of misconduct described
above and committed by him, while he was posted as a Clerk of Mominpur Branch. More so, the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Abinash Sadashiv Bhosle (D) through L.R.S. –vs- Union of India & Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 583 has held “it is settled
proposition of law that the finding of Enquiry Officer cannot be nullified so long as there is some relevant evidence in
support of the contentions required by the Enquiry Officer”. Further, in R.S. Saini -vs- State of Punjab & Ors., IT
1999 (6) SC 507 it has been held “if there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the Enquiring
Authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The
Enquiring Authority is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and
the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court”.
In view of the above discussions, this Tribunal does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the
Enquiry Officer or the concerned workman being harassed or victimized by the management or unfair labour practice
being adopted by the management against him.
Under the circumstances, this Tribunal holds the enquiry proceeding was conducted in consonance with the
principle of natural justice and therefore, the enquiry is held to be legal, valid and proper.
Further, having regards to the nature of misconduct committed by the concerned workman and the charge
having proved against him during departmental enquiry, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority by
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3395
reducing his scale of pay by two stages appers to be just and sufficient. This Tribunal does not find any need to
interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Therefore, the Reference No. 7 of 2008 is disposed of holding the action of the management just and proper
and award is passed accordingly.
K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1536.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj यूको
बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydrk ds iapkV (a09/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/14/2021-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/14/2021-IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.
REF. NO. 09 OF 2021
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
UCO Bank
AND
Their Workmen
Appearance:
On behalf of Management UCO Bank
: Sri Sachetan Ghosh, Advocate
On behalf of the Workmen/ Union
: None
Dated 17h May, 2023
AWARD
The Management of UCO Bank is found present through its Ld. Counsel, when the matter is called.
Unfortunately, the Union which has espoused the dispute challenging the termination of Sri Sikandar Singh, Sri Nalini
Pr. Behuria and Sri Amit Mondal, all Van drivers without following the provision of Sec.-25F of the I.D. Act has
failed to appear and contest the case despite due service of notice upon it as per track report dated 17.01.2023.
Record shows that notice of Reference and appearance sent to it through Regd. Post on 27.07.2021,
15.09.2021 and 01.10.2022 have never returned undelivered. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that previous notices
sent to it were duly served upon it, till this time through Speed Post and it is well aware of the pendency of this
reference case raised by it.
Therefore, non-appearance and failure to file claim statement by union give rise to presumption the union is
no more interested to pursue the dispute under reference “Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank,
Kolkata in terminating the services of Sri Sikandar Singh, Sri Nalini Pr. Behuria and Sri Amit Mondal, Mobile Van
Drivers without following the statutory provisions u/s 25F of I.D. Act is justified? If not, what relief the concerned
3396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workmen are entitled to?” as referred by the Govt. vide its Order No. L-12011/14/2021-IR(B-II) dated 11.05.2021 to
this Tribunal for adjudication.
In view of the above, ‘No Dispute Award’ is passed.
Accordingly, Ref. Case No. 09 of 2021 is disposed of.
Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1537.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
बी ड᭣᭨यू एफ एस (बडᭅ व᭨डᭅवाइड ᭢लाइ᭗स) सᳶवᭅसेज (इंिडया) ᮧाइवेट िलिमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
नं. II]
नई ᳰद᭨ली ds iapkV (आई डी न᭥बर
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20013/01/2023-आईआर(सीएम-I)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 78/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BWFS (Bird Worldwide Flights) Services (India) Pvt.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 12/09/2023.
[No. L-20013/01/2023-IR (CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.
Present:
Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I,
New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 78/2015
Date of Passing Award- 11th May,2023
Between:
Shri Raj Singh
S/o SHri Sunehra Singh,
R/o V.&P.O Bambewa,
Tehsil Beri, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana,
Workman
Versus
Management of BWFS (Bird Worldwide Flights)
Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Room No., 406, 4th Floor,
G+5 Building Terminal III, IGI
Airport, New Delhi
Also at: E-9, Cannaught House,
Cannaught Place, New Delhi.
Managements.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3397
Appearances:-
Shri Vijay Pal, Ld. A/R for the Claimant.
Shri Kunal Mehta, Ld. A/R for the management
AWARD
This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying a
direction to the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other consequential
benefits.
As per the claim statement the claimant Raj Singh was appointed wit h the mgt in July 2009 as Operator II.
In due course, he was promoted to the cadre of operator-III with effect from April 2014. Though promoted he was
not imparted any training as operator III by the mgt. But juniors to him who too were promoted to the cadre of
operator III were given training and ask to work in the post of Operator III. But the claimant for want of training,
was asked to work as operator II despite his promotion. When the workman was rendering his service with utmost
sincerity and dedication till 16.12.2014, surprisingly on 17.10.2014 when he reported for duty at the IGI Air Port as
per his duty schedule, the mgt without assigning any reason refused to take him on duty. The workman requested
time and again to allow him for performing duty. Though a pass for duty issued by the mgt was received by him on
19.01.2015, he was not allowed to perform duty. On 2/3 occasions when workman went to the office of the mgt with
a request to allow him for performing duty, he was treated with the rude behavior of the mgt. On 2/3.01.2015, he
received a registered letter from the mgt and on opening the same found the letter dated 29.11.2014 which was in the
nature of a notice calling an explanation for his unauthorized absence, failing which necessary disciplinary action
shall be taken against him. Though the date of the notice was 29.11.2014, in the content of the notice it was
mentioned that he has absconded from duty with effect from 17.12.2014. The claimant gave reply to the said notice.
Again on 10/11.01.2015 another notice was sent be registered post was received by the claimant wherein it was
mentioned that it is with reference to the letter dated 29.11.2014. In the said notice he was directed again to report in
HR office immediately failing which necessary disciplinary action shall be taken. This notice issued on 06.01.2015
was received by claimant on 10.01.2015. No disciplinary action has been initiated till date against the claimant but
all his request to take him back to duty was turned down. His last drawn salary was Rs.19,276/- per month which
was last paid up to 16.12.2014. After serving a long period with the mgt the claimant could not find any other
employment and made repeated request for reinstatement into service. Finding no other efficacious remedy, he raised
a dispute before the conciliation officer. For the non cooperation of the mgt conciliation failed and he was advised to
approach this Tribunal directly by invoking the provision of section 2A of the ID Act. Hence, he has filed the present
claim petition. IN the claim petition the clamant had prayed for a direction to the mgt to reinstate him into service
with back wages for the period 21.12.2014 to 20.01.2015 and till the reinstatement is made with all to other
consequential benefits. Along with the claim petition the claimant filed the photo copy of the conciliation failure
report, his appointment letter the show cause notice number 1 and 2 received from the mgt the it ID cards issued by
the mgt of this proceeding as well as DIAL, the Airport entry pass issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security,
the representation sent by the claimant to the HR head of the mgt etc.
Being noticed the mgt BWFS field written statement stating that the claimant Raj Singh was never
terminated or dismissed from service by the mgt. Alledging that the claim is not an industrial dispute, the mgt has
stated that the claimant was admittedly appointed as operator II in the year 2009. In April 2014 he was promoted to
the post of Operator III and the agreed salary per annum was 1,35.,528/-. As per the contract of employment, the
employee, if would remain absent from duty unauthorizely or without reasonable explanation for more than 7
consecutive days, it will be presumed that he is no longer interested for working in the company . This claimant was
on duty on 17.12.2014 at IGI Airport New Delhi. The job assigned to him by his immediate superior was not
carried out as the workman refused to carry out the same. On that day that is 17.12.2014 he left his duty after
refusing to carry out the order. From that day, that is 17.12.2014 he remained absent and on 29.12.2014 a notice was
sent to him by registered post vide postal receipt dated 30.12.2014 in his permanent address available with the mgt.
In the said notice he was directed to report duty immediately failing which suitable disciplinary action shall taken
against him. But the claimant failed to report for duty and as such another notice dated 06.01.2015 was sent to his
permanent address and both the notices were duly served on the claimant. But the claimant did not obey the direction
given in the notice. The mgt finding no other way sent a final notice dated 09.01.2015, in his permanent address
and in the said notice the workman was clearly told that for his absconding from duty since 17.12.2014, it is
believed that he has abandoned the service of the company. However, in the said notice he was again advised that in
case he would fail to resume duty, he should return the property of the mgt including the Airport entry pass etc. and
come forward to settle his accounts with the company. The notice dated 09.01.2015 was also delivered to the
claimant. After receipt of the third notice dated 09.01.2015 the claimant came up with a false plea that the contents
of the notice are incorrect and the notice dated 29.12.2014 is the only notice received by him. The workman since
failed to resume duty after service of all the three notices the mgt found him guilty of committing the breach of clause
3398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.2 (d) of the contract of employment and he was treated to have abandoned the service of the mgt. However, at a
good gesture, the mgt as another opportunity sent a letter dated 20.01.2015 by registered post asking the claimant to
explain within 48 hours of the receipt of the letter as to why he absconded from duty with effect from 17.12.2014.
But the workman failed to reply and continued to absent himself from duty. Thus the mgt has pleaded that the
service of the claimant was never terminated nor he was dismissed, but it is a case of voluntary abandonment and the
claimant is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
The claimant filed rejoinder to the W.S stating that he was always interested to work with the mgt but the
mgt never treated him cordially and the allegation that he abandoned the service is al false. For reasons known to the
mgt he was not allowed to perform duty from 17.12.2014. The mgt illegally terminated his service in gross violation
of the provisions of ID Act and before such termination no domestic enquiry was conducted against him.
On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed.
Issues
1.
Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between mgt and workman? If so its effect?
2.
Whether this Industrial Dispute is maintainable or not? If so its effect?
3.
To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?
The claimant examined himself as ww1 and proved the documents which were marked in a series ww1/1 to ww1/11.
These documents include the conciliation failure report claimant’s appointment letter containing the terms of
employment contract a letter written by the mgt to the claimant appreciating his effort to subside the strike of the
employees on 7th & 8th Feb 2013 the letter of promotion the notice number 1 and 2 the photo copies of the I Card and
air port entry pass and the representation of the claimant requesting the mgt to take him on duty. Similarly, the mgt
examined its DGM as MW1 who produced a number of documents. The documents include the four notices sent to
the claimant, the internal e- mail received from the HR Department intimating about the absconding of the workman
the letter of the claimant received by the mgt the postal receipt etc. Both the witnesses were cross examined at length
by the adversaries.
At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the mgt submitted that this is not an Industrial Dispute in terms
of Section 2(k) of the ID Act, since no demand notice was served before raising the dispute. He also submitted that
this is not a case of termination or dismissal from service as alleged by the claimant. The claimant had voluntarily
abandoned the service of the mgt by remaining absent for a continuous period of 7 days or more which was a clause
in the contract of employment. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the provison of section 25-F was
required to be complied, but not complied, making the termination of service illegal. The Ld. A/R for the workman
while pointing out to the notices issued to the claimant by the mgt and the photo copies of the log book filed by him,
submitted that the mgt had illegally refused to take him into service despite repeated request made by the claimant.
The action of the mgt amounts to termination of service. He also pointed out that in this case the mgt has admitted
about non compliance of the provisions of section 25-F of the ID Act and for the unfair labour practice meted to the
claimant he is entitled to reinstatement into service with full back wages. He also pointed out that the claimant is
unemployed since Dec 2014 and struggling with the litigation. Hence, a amount of litigation expenses be paid to him
by the mgt.
Findings
All the issues
The mgt had challenged the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that no demand notice was
served by the claimant on the mgt. The amended claim petition was filed by the claimant of 06.09.2016. In this claim
petition there is no mention about service of any demand notice on the mgt. But the facts pleaded by the parties
shows that before approaching this Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 2A of the ID Act, he claimant had
raised a dispute before the conciliation officer and during that conciliation proceeding ,the mgt had appeared and
participated. The failure report of the conciliation proceeding has been placed on record by the claimant. As per this
report the mgt had participated in the conciliation proceeding. Hence, it cannot be said that the mgt had no notice
with regard to the claim of the claimant. Accordingly, it is held that the maintainability of the claim cannot be
challenged on the ground that demand notice was not served on the mgt.
It is the specific stand taken by the claimant that he started working for the mgt in July 2009. He was
promoted to the cadre Operator III in the month of April 2014. He had performed the duty as such till 16.12.2014.
But suddenly on 17.12.2014 mgt refused to take him for work. For few days he ran to the office with a request to
take him on duty. But his request was not acceded to. On the contrary, on 02/03.01.2015 he received a registered
letter having caption notice (1) wherein it was alleged that he absconded from duty with effect from 17.12.2014. On
10/11.01.2015 another notice dated 06.01.2015 was received by him with caption notice (2) wherein it was again
alleged that he has absconded from duty without prior approval and advised to report in the HR Office. After receipt
of both the notices, the claimant gave reply stating that he has not absconded but the mgt refused to take him for
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3399
duty. But surprisingly the mgt did not consider the reply and on 28.01.2015 by issuing a final notice terminated his
service without complying the provisions of 25-F of ID Act. The claimant during his examination has proved the
notice dated 29.11.2014 with caption notice (1) and the noticed dated 06.01.2015 notice (2) his reply to the mgt as
WW1/11. In the oral statement the claimant clearly stated that the notices were concocted to put some blame on him
and he had never absconded from duty. Rather the mgt refused to take him on duty.
The witness examined by the mgt is the DGM of the Company he proved many documents in support of the
stand of the mgt that the claimant had abandoned his duty for a continuous period of 7 days or more and the mgt had
never terminated his service. The claimant during cross examination was confronted with the notice number dated
29.11.2014 the notice number 2 dated 06.01.2015, and notice number 3 dated 09.01.2015 and the final notice dated
28.01.2015 marked as ww1/m1, ww1/m3, ww1/m5 and ww1/m7 respectively and asked, if he had received all these
notices in his home address. To the said question the claimant answered affirmatively. On the basis of this oral and
documentary evidence mgt took a stand that the claimant himself has filed the contract of his employment as ww1/2.
In this document at clause 9.2(d), it has been clearly mentioned that if the employee without any authorization or
reasonable explanation remains absent for more than 7 days consecutively, it will be presumed that he is no longer
interested in working for the company and have abandoned his service. The company will have the right to terminate
the contract of service. The mgt thereby argued that the notices placed on record clearly shows that the claimant has
absented from service for consequential 7 days and more and despite receipt of notice did not report in the HR
Department, which by necessary implication amount to abandonment of service. But in this case the mgt as a good
gesture, called the claimant by issuing notices to report to the HR but he did not comply. Furthermore the claimant,
as per his own admission had worked till 16.12.2014. On 17.12.2014 he did not accept the duty assigned to him and
left the office unauthroziely and did not return despite service of the notices. The mgt witness during his
examination stated that documents have been filed relating to absence and absconding of the workman from duty
with effect from 17.12.2014. The notices sent to him have been acknowledged during cross examination. He did not
report to the HR as directed and voluntarily left the job. Hence his demand for reinstatement cannot be entertained.
On behalf of the workman a photo copy of the log book was filed at a belated stage. The said document could
not be exhibited for the objection of the mgt and kept on record being marked as X. The Ld. A/R for the workman
pointed out to this log book and stated that as per the entry in the log book bearing serial no 428 dated 09.01.2015,
the service of the claimant and two other operators were terminated at 6 PM, which is illegal.
From the admitted state of evidence it is evidently clear that the claimant was appointed in the mgt in July
2009 and he was granted promotion in April 2014. His last drawn salary which has not been disputed by the mgt was
Rs. 19276. It is also admitted by both the parties that the claimant had last worked on 16.12.2014. Whereas the
claimant states that his service was terminated with effect from 17.12.2014, the mgt has taken a stand that he himself
abandoned the service by remaining absent for more than 7 days and as such his contract of employment stood
automatically terminated.
It is an admitted state of fact that no termination letter, termination notice was issued or termination
compensation was paid to the claimant. Hence, it is necessary to examine if the cessation of work of the claimant
amounts to termination of service or abandonment of service. Clause 9.2 (b) of the employment contract exhibited
by the claimant as ww1/2 clearly envisages that an employee remains absent unauthorizely for 7 days or more, the
same would amount to abandonment of service leading to termination of the contract of employment. The claimant
argued that he reported for duty on 17.12.2014 and thereafter. But the mgt refused to take him for work. Except the
oral evidence, no document has been filed by the claimant to prove this aspect of his claim. The evidence reveals that
there is a biometric system of attendance. The claimant has not stated that he marked his attendance using the same
or by producing any paper in the dak to mark his attendance. On the other hand the mgt issued three notices that is
ww1/m1 ww1/m3 and ww1/m5 between 29.12.2014 to 09.01.2015. Claimant has admitted receipt of these notices.
In these notices the claimant was called to report before the HR and it was also mentioned that his conduct leads to
an assumption that he is not interested to continue in service. Surprisingly, the claimant though admits receipts of
these notices has not stated as to why he did not go to meet the HR as directed. On the contrary, he remained silent
by giving written reply to the notice which has been marked as ww1/11 by the claimant. This reply was sent by the
claimant on 31.01.2015 to the HR Department of the mgt. The mgt thereafter, on 20.01.2015 issues the forth
and final notice to the claimant, giving him the last opportunity of furnishing proper explanation and justification for
the continuous absence from duty. It is noticed from the evidence that the claimant though received the notice, did
not respond to the same. Thus the circumstances clearly lead to a conclusion that the claimant on 17.12.2014 stopped
reporting for duty and despite receipts of four notices from the mgt directing to report before the HR and furnish
explanation for his absence, did not meet the HR and remained satisfied by giving one written reply to the notices on
31.01.2015 which is marked as ww1/11.
The Ld. A/R for the mgt argued that this is a typical case of abandonment of service by the claimant and no
liability can be shaddled on the mgt. It is a fact noticeable from the evidence that the claimant, despite receipt of four
notices did not appear before the HR and remained silent by submitting only one written reply marked as ww1/11.
At the same time, it is also noticed that the mgt showed lack of diligence by not issuing any show cause notice to the
claimant calling him to show cause as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for the said
3400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
unauthorized absence. It is also noticed that the last and final notice was sent to the claimant on 28.01.2015, but prior
to that in the entry dated 19.01.2015 made in the log book the termination of service of the claimant along with two
others was endorsed. This action of the mgt amounts to unfair labour practice leading to illegal termination as it is
not disputed by the parties that the provisions of section 25F were not complied. Be it stated here that it is not
disputed here by any party that the claimant had worked for continuously for 240 days or more in the establishment
of the mgt preceding the date of his termination.
Now it is to be examined to what relief the claimant is entitled to. IT is not disputed that the mgt is a
company engaged in ground handing at the AIR port. It has a good number of employees to execute the contracted
work. But there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the parties to make the Tribunal believe that there is still a
vacancy in the Cadre of operator III in which the claimant was working before termination. His work was
discontinued in the month of Dec 2014 and more than 8 years passed in the meantime. Considering the situation it is
not felt proper to direct the mgt to reinstate the claimant in service. It is felt proper to direct the mgt to compensate
the claimant for the illegal termination. Hence Ordered.
Order
The claim petition be and the same is answered in favor of the claimant. The termination of service of the
claimant is held to be illegal as the mandatory of provisions section 25-F were not complied by the employer before
such termination. The evidence is clear to the extent that the claimant had worked for the mgt for four years and four
months commencing from July 2009 to Dec 2014. In view of the same the claimant is held entitled to retrenchment
compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for each completed years of continuous service and part thereof in
excess of six month. Hence, the claimant is held entitled to 60 days average pay in addition to one month pay in lieu
of notice and an amount towards litigation expenses. Accordingly the mgt is directed to pay Rs. 1 Lakh 50 thousand
to the claimant within 1 month from the date of publication of the award without interest failing which the amount
shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of illegal termination and till the final payment is
made.
Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
PRANITA MOHANTY PresidingOfficer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1538.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
इ.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
नं. 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/517/97-आईआर(सी-I )]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/517/97-IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT
Dr. S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947
REFERENCE NO.22 OF 1999
PARTIES:
:
The Area Secretary,
RCMS.Chawla Building, Kumardhubi
Distt:Dhanbad
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3401
Vs.
The General Manager ,
Mugma Area of M/s ECL
PO:Nirsachatti ,Distt:Dhanbad
Order No.L-20012/517/97-IR (C-I) dt 12.01.1999
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman /Union :
Mr.Shankar Bose Ld.Representative
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
State
:
Jharkhand Industry
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, 8th June ,2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No.L-20012/517/97-IR(C-I) dt 12.01.1999
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the the Management of Gopinathpur Colliery of M/s ECL in dismissing
Shri Arjun Bhuia Underground Loader of Gopinathpur Colliery from his services w.e.f. 7.3.95 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. This is a reference received from the appropriate Government to adjudicate the present dispute between
Employer ,i.e., the Management of Mugma Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd., and its workman/claimant ,herein,
under clause (d) of Sub Sec. (1) and Sub Sec. (2A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.,1947 vide Ministry’s
order referred hereinabove. ,
3 Consequent upon filing the written statement of claim by the Union Representative and counter by the
OP/Management the proceeding was set in motion but no further steps have been taken in progress of the
proceedings from either of the parties. The workman Shri Arjun Bhaia a U/G Loader under the Management of
Gopinathpur Colliery was chargesheeted on the misconduct of absentism. The workman could not produce
evidence to examine on his part despite the matter stalled over this stage for years together with numerous
adjournments. The issue of the matter related to valid justification of punishment of dismissal imposed on the
claimant which the workman described illegal and unjustified to the charge levelled against him.
4 On perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner /workman left the matter half heartedly without
taking it forward for finality since 2005 and left the issue without taking recourse of availing remedial provisions
under adjudication of the Industrial Dispute Act.,1947 particularly holding the preliminary enquiry fair and
proper against the workman by the Tribunal. Despite directions and granting suo motu adjournments on that score
the claimant/ workman stopped taking any step in regular course on merits contrary to uninterrupted hearing till
concluding for hearing for final order. It is clear that workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on
contest.
5 The workman has neither put his appearance further merely filing of written statement of claim nor has he
led any evidence and or taking any step in the matter of adjudication to prove his cause. The workman stopped
appearing /representing the matter since 2005. .This Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass No Claim
Award .Accordingly, “No Claim Award” is passed in the matter of reference case with no relief to the claimant
concerned.
Let the Award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Sec. 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act.,1947 for publication.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1539.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
3402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
-
सह
-
नं. 1]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/168/2000-आईआर(सी-I)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1539—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 280/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/168/2000-IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference: No. 280/2000
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Dr. S.K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:
For Employer :- Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate.
For workman :- Sri Ram Ratan Ram, Ld. Advocate.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th August, 2023
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/168/2000 IR(C-I) dated 18.09.2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Lalchand
Gope from the services of the company w.e.f. 1/2.11.94 is justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
1.
The present reference is being heard afresh as per order of the Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand at Ranchi in
WP(L) No. 6002 of 2009 in which the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide order dated 03.07.2023 has
remitted back to this Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of following observations.
“ 34.
Parties to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18.07.2023 at 11.00 a.m. Upon their appearance,
the Learned Industrial Tribunal is directed to proceed and pass the final award in accordance with law within a
period of one month from the date of the appearance. At this, learned counsel for the respondent workman has
informed this court that the workman will be represented by the Union who was representing the workman earlier
before the learned tribunal. It is observed that in case of any difficulty, the learned court below shall pass appropriate
order for legal assistance/legal aid to the workman through the District Legal Services Authority.”
2.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
(i)
By Order No.L-20012/168/2000 IR(C-I) dated 18.09.2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3403
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Lalchand Gope from the
services of the company w.e.f. 1/2.11.94 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
(ii) The workman side had filed written statement of claim assailing the domestic enquiry and order of punishment for
dismissal from the service based on unfair enquiry.
(iii)
The main arguments advanced on behalf of the workman was that he has been acquitted from the criminal
charges of theft of cable for which FIR had been lodged and charge-sheeted on dated 17.02.1994 in case under G.R.
No. 575/94 and T.R. No 138/94 who was exonerated by Judicial Magistrate on the ground that no evidence has been
produced who had caught red handed. He was acquitted by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by order dated 25.02.1999.
Since he has been acquitted in criminal cases he should not have been dismissed by the management because of the
fact that management could not prove its case in the above criminal cases.
(iv) (a) As per submission of the management side the fact is that the concerned workman was a night guard. On
16.02.1994, he was caught red handed committing theft of armored cable along with joint box for which a criminal
case was also instituted. In the departmental proceeding, he was served with a charge-memo dated 17.02.1994. A
reply was submitted and when the reply was not found satisfactory, the domestic enquiry was conducted; copy of the
enquiry report was forwarded to the concerned workman and thereafter, the dismissal order was passed on
02.11.1994. he submits that after expiry of more than four years from the dismissal the workman was acquitted in the
criminal case on 25.02.1999 and thereafter, industrial dispute was raised and the dispute was referred to the Industrial
Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2000 to decide the following dispute:
“Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Lalchand
Gope from the services of the company w.e.f. 1/2-11-94 is justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
(b)
A petition was filed by none other than the workman himself accepting that the enquiry was fair and proper.
The petition is dated 14.05.2009 which has been brought on record. The tribunal passed the impugned award dated
01.07.2009 holding that the workman having been acquitted in the criminal case, no appeal was filed against his
acquittal, therefore, the order of dismissal was not proper and consequently, the workman was entitled to be reinstated
with 60% back wages. Against the award, the present writ petition was filed.
(c)
In the domestic enquiry, there were altogether three witnesses and once the domestic enquiry was held to be
fair and proper, it was for the Industrial Tribunal to consider only the material which were there before the domestic
enquiry and the subsequent event which led to acquittal of the workman did not form material on record for
consideration.
(d)
Otherwise also the evidences before the domestic enquiry were different from the criminal case. In the
criminal case, only one prosecution witness was examined and other two prosecution witnesses did not appear. In the
domestic enquiry there were three witnesses and the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and was held to be fair and proper.
(e)
The matter was required to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal within the scope of section 11-A of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that exercise has not been done by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal
has passed the impugned order merely on account of the acquittal of the workman by the criminal court.
(f)
The management has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 10
SCC 367 (Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. C. Nagaraja and Another) (Para 9 to 13) to
submit that the acquittal in a criminal case on account of non-production of evidence amounts to giving a benefit of
doubt and therefore, it cannot be said to be clean acquittal. He also submits that mere acquittal in a criminal case does
not automatically result in exoneration in the departmental proceedings. Setting aside of the order of dismissal solely
on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case is itself perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(g)
The management also relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008)
1 SCC 115 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar) and has submitted that once the domestic
enquiry is held to be fair and proper under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, interference would be limited to
the issue relating to proportionality of punishment and whether the punishment has been imposed by practicing unfair
labour practices.
3.
Based on the submissions on behalf of the workman side and the management side this Tribunal passed the
following Award.
“Accordingly, I render the following award- The action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
in dismissing Sri Lalchand Gope from the services of the company w.e.f. 1/2-11-94 is not justified. Hence, the
3404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with 60% back wages, but he will not be entitled for further
increments and further promotion till the date of joining. The management is directed to implement the award within
30 days from the date of publication of the award.”
4.
Upon remitting of the reference as per order dated 03.07.2023 in W.P.(L) No. 6002 of 2009 of the Hon’ble
High Court, Jharkhand at Ranchi the workman side and the management side appeared before this Tribunal on
18.07.2023 through their respective Ld. Counsel and the matter was heard on 31.07.2023 and both sides were directed
to file their submissions within 3 days and serve upon each other fixing the next hearing on 07.08.2023. Both sides
filed their written notes of arguments and the matter was heard for oral arguments. On hearing both sides the hearing
is concluded and reserved for Award on 07.08.2023.
5.
Through his submissions the workman again tried to assail the domestic enquiry proceedings and arbitrarily
dismissal of the workman from service w.e.f. 02.11.1994. He also reiterated his earlier submissions that he has already
been acquitted by the Court in the case upon F.I.R lodged by management for the alleged case of theft.
6.
Per contra, the management side submitted list of documents filed by the management which were marked as
exhibits during the earlier proceedings before this Tribunal under Reference No. 280 of 2000 with proved facts of the
case.
7.
The management also reiterated that during the hearing of the reference the workman representative
submitted petition before the Tribunal mentioning therein that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair
and proper. Accordingly, this Tribunal recorded in its proceeding dated 03.06.2009 for acceptance of the workman
petition dated 14.05.2009 that the enquiry held by the management as fair and proper.
8.
The management side based on the above findings that the enquiry has been accepted and held to be fair and
proper the order of dismissal was passed on 02.11.1994 against the concerned workman.
9.
The Ld. Counsel further submits that it is well settled law that the standard of proof in criminal case is
beyond the reasonable doubt whereas, in departmental enquiry the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.
10.
FINDINGS
(i)
The concerned workman was a night guard with the respondent management and charges of theft by the
night guard himself has been proved in the domestic enquiry proceedings. The charges become grave in that the night
guard whose duty is to guard the properties of the management himself indulged in the theft of the property of the
management.
(ii)
Further as cited, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order in Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2019 arising
out of SLP (C) No. 25909 of 2013 in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. C.
Nagaraju and Another that acquittal by the appellant Court has no bearing on decision on disciplinary authority in
the departmental enquiry proceedings and justifying the actions taken by the management even if acquittal to the
charged employee by the appropriate Court of law.
11.
AWARD
(i)
In the light of above discussions this Tribunal is of considered opinion not to interfere in the punishment of
dismissal from the service against the concerned workman by the management based on the findings of the domestic
enquiry proceedings. The punishment ordered upon the concerned workman is not only punishment to concerned
individual but also that it sends message to others as a deterrent measures and as such no relief is awarded in service
matter to the workman.
(ii)
However, considering the age of the concerned workman and also that he has been fighting the legal battle at
different forum from the year 1994 this Tribunal is of the opinion for considering a monetary compensation as cost of
legal expenses made by the dismissed workman from 1994, on compassionate basis. Therefore, this Tribunal Awards
Rs. 50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as monetary compensation towards legal expenses incurred by the concerned
workman and it is ordered that the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL should pay the above compensation
of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to meet the legal expenses incurred by the concerned workman. This
compensation should be paid to the concerned workman Sri Lalchand Gope by the management within 2 (two)
months of receipt of the notification of this award.
Dr. S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1540.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3405
-
सह
-
नं. 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/32/2002-आईआर(सी-I)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/32/2002-IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
Present: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 60 OF 2002.
PARTIES:
:
The Vice President,
R.C.M.S.,
Rajendra Path, Dhanbad
Vs.
The Project Officer,,
Bhowra O.C.P. of M/s BCCL,
PO:Bhowra,Distt: Dhanbad
Order No. L-20012/32/2002-IR(C.1) dated 17.07.2002
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
Mr.N.G.Arun, Ld. Union Representative
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr.U.N.Lal, Ld. Advocate .
State
:
Jharkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th April,2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.
10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-20012/32/2002-IR(C.1) dated 17.07.2002
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of RCMS from the Management of Bhowra O.C.P. of BCCL to regularize the
workman, Shri Awatar Singh in Grade “D” since 1998 is proper and justified? If yes, to what relief is
the workman entitled ?”
2. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Order
No. L-20012/32/2002-IR(C.1) dated 17.07.2002 under clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Sec.
3406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10 of the Act for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are referred as above. The case was registered as
Ref. No. 60/2002 and notice served upon the parries for appearance.
3. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the sponsoring Union on behalf of the workman is that workman
Shri Awatar Singh was transferred as Electrical Fitter helper in Bhowra C.P.P. under Eastern Jharia Area of M/s
BCCL in Grade “E” w.e.f. 12.04.1994 .After completion of one year the workman should have been regularized as
E.F .Fitter in Grade “D” But he was regularized as E.P,Fitter Helper on 13.12.2001 which itself is illegal and as such
seeking direction from the OP/Management to place him in Grade “D” Excavation as E.P. Fitter since 1998 is
justified and within the ambit of the Cadre Scheme with prayer to answer the Reference in favour of the workman.
4. On the other hand O.P./Management took stand that Shri Awartar Singh was initially appointed as General
Mazdoor in Cat.I on 23.03.1993 in substitution to his father who was declared Medically unfit .Thereafter , the
workman was transferred to Bhowra (N) U/G Mine and again transferred to Bhowra O.C.P. and given en
assignment as EP Helper (T) in T/R Category –II .Shri Abtar Singh has been regularized as E.P.Helper in
Excavation Category w.e.f. 13.03.2001 in the background of job performed by him in accordance with the
Implementation Institution No. 49/Grade Scheme and Company’s manual /policy . As regard the further promotion
in Ex.-Grade “D” minimum four years experience in Excavation Grade “E” is prerequisite to be possessed by the
workman before appearing in Selection Process and so the promotion is not automotive but based upon certain
criteria. .So the demand of the Union for giving Grade “D” from 1998 is not legitimate, correct on the basis of the
policies laid down in the Company’s manual and the provision contained in the Cadre Scheme. So the action of the
Management not agreeing to accede to the demand of the union is just and proper as the workman is not entitled to
any other relief in the matter.
5. The proceeding of the matter was set into motion after filing claim and counter claim by the parties concerned
thorough the Ld. Auth. Representative. After filing certain documents in support of union/contention certain
documents had been called for from the ALC, Dhanbad .On receipt of the document matter rolled over evidence of
the workman which remained stalled since 18.01.2005 without any cogent reason and the Union repeatedly failed
to turn up to contest the matter. From perusal of record shows that the claimant during the proceeding had never taken
steps to adduce evidence and opted to stay away from the proceedings. Thus, it is clear the Sponsoring Union
/workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits. With passage of time the matter of the fact lost
its relevancy and became in fructuous .
6. Thus having regard to the fact and materials available on record it has been absolutely clear that the Sponsoring
Union stopped appearance in the matter nor took any steps in the matter of advancing the stalled proceedings despite
adjournments and notices as well. So it is held that the claimant is no longer interested to contest the matter on merits
.Therefore, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass “No Claim Award”.Accordingly a “No Claim Award” is
passed to be sent to the appropriate Government as required under Sec. 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for
publication.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1541.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
नं. 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/388/2000-आईआर(सी-I)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/388/2000-IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3407
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
Present: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO 20 OF 2001.
PARTIES:
:
The General Secretary,
Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor Congress ,
Ghanoodih Colliery,
PO:Jharia,Distt:Dhanbad
Vs.
The General Manager, ,
Bastacolla Area of M/s BCCL.,
PO:Jharia,Distt:Dhanbad
Order No. L-20012/388/2000-IR(C-I) dated 25,01.2001
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
Mr.N.G.Arun, Ld. Union Representative
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr.U.N.Lal, Ld. Advocate .
.
State
:
Jharkhand Industry Coal
Dated,Dhanbad ,the26th April, 2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.
10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order
No. L-20012/388/2000-IR(C-I) dated 25,01.2001 .
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s BCCL in not regularizing the services of Sri Anwar Ali,
Rushian Drill Operator .Excav. Gra ”A” as Transport Supervisor in Tech . & Supervisor Gr. “B” w.e.f.
27.12.94,Sri Nathuni Jha,Sr. Dozeer Operator ,Excav Gr. “A” as loading Inspector in Tech. & Supv.Gr.”B”
w.e.f. 19.08.94 ,Sri Dineshwar Mishra ,Drill Operator Excav. Gr.”B” as Pit Supervisor in Tech. & Supevisary
Gr.”B” w..e.f. 5.2.95, Sri Uday Kar Thakur ,Sr. Mechanic Excvn. Gr.”A” as Excavation Supervisor in
Technical and Transport Gr.”B” w.e.f. 21.11.94 of Golakdih Open Cast Project under Bastacolla Area is
justified and legal? If not, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled?”
2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between employer and its workmen/claimants herein, under the clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub-Section
(2A) of Sec.10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide Order No.L-20012/388/2000-IR(C-I) dated 25.01.2001 to
this Tribunal for adjudication.. The reference largely deals with the grievance of the non-regularization of the
workmen to the posts they are being asked to carry out those jobs.
3. The claim statement filed by the Sponsoring Union states the following :
i) That Shri Anwar Ali ,through designated as Russian Drill Operator in Excav. Gr.”A” has been working
Transport Supervisor since 27.12.1994 and thereafter he is entitled for regularization as Transport Supervisor in
Tech. & Sup. Grade “B” w.e.f. 27.12.1994 Another workman namely Shri Nathuni Jha designated as Dozer
Operator in Excav. Grade “A” has been working as Loading Operator since 19.8.1994 ,as such he is entitled for
regularization Tech. & Supervisory Grade “B” w.e.f. 19.8.1994 .Similarly Shri Dineshwar Mishra ,though
designated Drill Operator in Excav. Gr.”B” has been working as Pit Supervisory w.e.f. 5.2.95 and he is entitled
for regularization as Pit Supervisory Gr.”B” w.e.f. 5.2.1995 and Finally Shri Uday Kar Thakur though designated
as Sr. Mechanic in Excav. Gr. “A” has been working as Excav Supervisor w.e.f. 21.11.1994 and as such he is
entitled for regularization in Tech & Supervisory Gr. “B” w.e.f. 21.11.1994 .All of these workmen have been
working continuously on the posts mentioned against their names at Golukdih Open Cast Project of Bastacolla
Area with approval of the competent authority .So the demand of the Union is legal and justified as all of them
are well qualified for regularization .So the case predominately stands for regularization not for promotion
3408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ii) Though the workmen concerned have been working in different Excav. Grades but all of them are working on
Supervisory Posts from the dates mentioned against their names without any interruption so they are entitled for
regularization on the posts and Grade mentioned against their names. Since all of them had been duly authorized
by the Competent Authority to work on the jobs mentioned against their names. The contention of the
Management is not correct at all that the workmen concerned in connivance with the Project Officer of Golukdih
Open Cast Project have managed the matter of getting authorization for the working in different jobs they were
entrusted upon. Taking this as tool they are now claiming for regularization, which is misleading, confusing and
far from the facts.
iii) So the action of the Management of M/s BCCL in not regularizing the services of the concerned workmen
on the job being performed from the date mentioned against their names is not justified rather they are entitled for
regularization on the designations and Grades mentioned against their names .
4. In a sharp contrast to the claims of the workmen the OP/Management :
(i) came out with pleading that the present reference is not maintainable itself in the eye of law with assertions
that S/Sri Anwar ali ,Nathuni Jha and Dineshwar Mishra belonging to the Cadre of Operators operating Machines
like Drill, dozer etc. whereas the workman Sri Uday Thakur is the Mechanic in carrying out the jobs of repairing
and maintenance of Excavation Machineries. Originally being related to Time Rated Categories there is no s
cope for them to get their cadres changed to the Supervisory posts directly by circumventing the cadre Scheme
duly formulated by the JBCCI and their posting to Supervisory posts is completely disregarding the claims of the
persons belonging to their categories as well as the persons already existing in the Higher Categories in the
Cadres.
ii) Notable the then Project Officer, (now Retired) is in convince with the workmen concerned purported to
have issue some Authorization authorizing them to perform different jobs other than specified for them. It is
with aiming to get white collar jobs of Foreman by way of litigation taking the authorization as their tools. The
so called authorization granted by then Project Officer is beyond his competency . So the entire claim made out
by the Sponsoring Union is without any merit and the workmen concerned are not entitled to any relief.
5) The workmen /claimants and the OP/Management filed their respective rejoinder rebutting each other stand
therein categorically
6). During the hearing of the case the workmen were called to adduce evidence and they made depositions
and exhibited documents but all the workmen could not adduce .Perusal of the record shows that the workmen
deserted the proceeding since February,2008.Thereafter, no representation was made in the matter of the stalled
proceeding of the matter .They stopped appearing in the case in regular course of hearing despite ample
opportunity provided .Hence, it is held that the claimants are not interested to relief as sought for .Therefore,
“No claim Award” is passed being devoid of participation in the proceedings .
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1542.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
नं. 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/455/98-आईआर(सी-I)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 179/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023
[No. L-20012/455/98-IR (C-I)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3409
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
Present: Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE NO 179 OF 1999.
PARTIES
:
The Asstt. Secretary,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh
Central Workshops ,Barkakana PO: Barkhana
Distt: Hazaribagh
Vs
General Manager,
Central Workshop, Barkhanna, of M/s CCL
PO:Barkhhan,NTS ,
Distt:Hazaribagh
Ministry’s Order No.L-20012/455/98-IR(C-I) dt. 17.04.1999
APPEARANCES
:
On behalf of the workman/Union
Mr.K.Chakraborty, Ld.Advocate
On behalf of the Management
Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate .
.
State
:
JHARKHAND Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th April , 2023.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Ministry’s Order
No.L-20012/455/98-IR(C-I) dt. 17.04.1999.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to regularize 17 workmen as per list as
Clerk Category-III is proper and justified? If yes, from which date and what benefits these workmen are entitled to?”
List of the workman
Sl.No.
Name of the workman
1
Shri Sailendra Kumar Singh
2
Shri Tuleshwar Mahato
3
Shri Suresh Kumar Viswakarma
4
Miss Alpana Kumar Pandey
5
Shri Puran Mahato
6
Shri Basant Narayan Mahato
7
Shri Dinesh Kumar Thakur
8
Shri Birendra Kumar Mahato
9
Smt. Mamta Kumari
10
Shri Dewashsish Mukherjee
11
Shri Kailesh Kumar
3410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12
Shri Nand Lal Das
13
Shri Jetendra Kumar Pathak
14
Shri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Srivastava
15
Shri Ravindra Kumar No. 1
16
Shri Mahakanth Mishra
17
Shri Anil Kumar Singh
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
The claimants filed the written statement of claim and some documents in contention of the claim .
3. During the pendency of the reference notices were sent to the workmen as well as the Management .None of
the notices sent to the claimants was returned back. Therefore, it is presumed that the above notices were served
upon the claimants. Despite availing suo-motu adjournments granted under the proceedings during the period of
hearing the claimants opted to stay away from the proceedings about their regularization into the service in Central
Coalfields Limited (CCL)No steps have been taken further in the matter of producing evidence on their behalf in
regular course since 2004 so as to prove their cause as none appeared /represented after 2004.Thus, it is clear that
workmen are not interested to proceed with the case in the matter of adjudication of the reference on merits, referred
above.
4. The workmen concerned have neither put their appearance nor have they led evidence and shown interest so
as to prove their cause against the Management. This Tribunal is left with no option ,except to pass “No Claim
Award” and ordered accordingly..Let this No Claim Award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under
Sec.17 of the Industrial Disputes Aft,1947 for publication.
Dr.S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1543.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
नं. 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/326/99-आईआर(सी-I)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/326/99 - IR(C-I)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Dr.S.K.Thakur,
Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3411
REFERENCE NO 24 OF 2000 .
PARTIES:
:
Sri Bhagirathi Sharma,
General Secretary,
N.C.O.I.O , Karo Special Project of M/s CCL.,
PO: Bokaro Thermal, Bokaro
Vs.
The Project Officer,
Karo Special Project,
PO: Phase II of M/s CCL,
PO: Bokaro Thermal .Distt: Bokaro 829107
Order No. L-20012/326/99 C-I dt.23.01.2000
APPEARANCES
:
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
None .
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate
.
State
:
Jhrkhand
Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, 8th June, 2023
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-20012/326/99 C-I dt.23.01.2000.
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the Management of Karo Specia Project, Phase –II of M/s CCL M/s PO.
Bokaro Thermal ,Distt:Bokaro in terminating the services Sri Rohan Manjhi P.R.W. w.e.f.
10.08.98is legal and justified ?If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? ”
2. In the reference order, the Sponsoring Union filed the statement of claim which was countered by the
OP/Management denying the stand of the points and vice versa. With this the proceeding was set in motion on
evidence of the Management /Upon failure to adduce evidence the same was passed over to the Union side. Since
then the claimant stopped appearing in the proceedings in regular course and did not avail remedial provisions
contained under provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.1947 till concluding of the hearings.
3. On perusal of the record, it appears the workman Shri Rohn Manjhi opted to abstain away from the
proceedings since 2006 and no further steps was taken in the matter despite ample opportunity and notices Thus,
it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on contest.
4. As the workman has neither put his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the Management, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a “No Claim Award”. Accordingly a
“No Claim Award” is passed granting no relief to the workman concerned.
5. Let the Award be sent to the appropriate Government as required under Sec. 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947 for publication.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1544.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
3412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
-
सह
-
नं. 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/214/2005-आईआर(सीएम-I)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/214/2005- IR(CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Dr.S.K.Thakur
Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947.
REFERENCE NO. 42 OF 2006.
PARTIES
The Secretary ,,
U.C.W.U.,G.M.Unit,Kuju,Kuju Area,
At/PO: Toppa,
Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) -825301
VS.
General Manager
Kuju Area of M/s CCL.,
PO:Kuju,Hazaribagh-825301
0.4.12.2012 Order No.L-20012/214/2005-IR(CM-I) dt. 12.06.2006
APPEARANCES
:
On behalf of the workman/Union
:
Mr.U .N.Lal, Ld.Advocate
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate
.
State
:
JHARKHAND Industry
: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th April,2022.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No.L-20012/214/2005-IR(CM-I) dt. 12.06.2006.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the UCWU from the Management of CCL,Kuju Area that Sh. Alok Kumar
Choubey may be regularized as Data Entry Operator Gr.”E” is justified?”If so to what relief is the
workman entitled and from what date?”
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3413
2.
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing
between Employer i.e., Management of Kuju Area of M/s Central Coal Field Ltd. (CCL) and its workman/claimant
herein, under clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub. Sec. (2A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide its
letter No. referred above for adjudication. Subsequently the case was registered as Ref. No. 42-2006.
3. The Reference is received on 21.07.2006 by this Tribunal vide which the Sponsoring Union UCWUGM Un
it Kuju Area has been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant documents within stipulated date.
However, after receipt of the reference, both the parties were noticed and both their parties appeared through their Ld.
Advocate and filed their r respective clams on different dates denying each other stand of their claims.
4. Further during the pendency of the proceedings the workman concerned Mr.Alok Kumar Choubey moved
petition before the Court seeking for withdrawal of the Case from contesting. Mr.S.N.Ghsh, Ld. Advocte who was
present for some other cases was made a witness. Ld. Advocate for the OP/Management Mr.D.K.Verma did not
object to the contention for the workman.The O.P./Management is ready to settle the matter of reference under
adjudication if the workman withdraws the petition. The workman prays the matter may be allowed to be withdrawn
.Which was allowed .Hence No Claim Award is passed.
5. Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Sec. 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 19 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1545.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj
बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
नंo 2]
धनबाद ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/180/92-आईआर(कोयला-I)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2023
S.O. 1545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 149/1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7/09/2023.
[No. L-20012/180/92- IR(Coal-I)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.
PRESENT
Dr. S. K. THAKUR
Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act.,1947
REFERENCE NO.149 OF 1993.
PARTIES:
:
The Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Karmgar Union,
Temple Road., Purana Bazar,
Dhanbad -826001
Vs.
The General Manager,
M/s Bharat Coking Coal India Ltd.,
3414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bastacolla Area No. IX ,PO:Jharia
Dhanbad
Order No. L-20012/180/92-IR (C-I) dt. 14.09.1993
APPEARANCES
On behalf of the workman /Union :
Mr. K.Chakravorty Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management
:
Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate
State
:
Jharkhand Industry
:
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th June,2023
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No.L-20012/180/92 -I.R.(Coal-I) dt. 14.09.93.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of G.O.C.P. under Bastacolla Area No. IX of M/s BCCL in
not regularizing the services of Shri Pawan Mahato and 26 others is justified ? If not, to what relief they are
entitled to ?”
List of the workers
Sl No.
Name
1
Pawan Mahato
2
Jadu Mahato
3
Narayan Paandey
4
Amarjit Pandey
5
KissuMahato
6
Kisun Mahato
7.
Lal Mohan Mahato
8
Anand Mahato
9
Sadhu Mahato
10
Ujjar mahato
11
Harihar Singh
12
Satish Mandal
13
Dayari Gope
14
Gouri Manjhi
15
Barsu Manjhi
16.
Sudhir Mandal
17
Kunt Devi (1)
18
Kunti Devi (2)
19
Malti Devi
20
Shanti Devi(1)
21
Shanti Devi (2)
22
Sacchi Devi
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3415
23
Juhiya Milege
24
Sulochna Devi
25
Bhadu Kumari
26
Sidheswari
27
Bindu Devi
2 This is a reference from the Appropriate Government vide order mentioned herein above existing between the
Management of M/s BCCL of Bastacolla Area No.IX ,Dhanbad its workers (Claimants) about their regularization
under clause (d) of Sub Sec. (1) and Sub. Sec. (2A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.
3 Consequent upon filing written statement of claim by the Sponsoring Union in pursuant to the Reference
under order to the cause of their regularization of services to the OP/Management and the counter by the
OP/Management , hearing of the case matter proceeded on merits with rejoinder by both the parties denying each
other stand. The matter finally rolled over evidence of the OP/Management that after completion passed over to the
Union/workmen(Claimants).In course of adducing evidence both the sides adduced evidences of respective sides and
exhibited the documents in relation to the case matter. Amidst some complaint the proceeding was put on hold
awarding of reference with direction to await the response from the Ministry .The final arguments could not be
completed and the Sponsoring union finally stopped representing the matter since last several years without taking
any steps. The Sponsoring Union left the matter in mid way in regular course without completing the stage of
finality.
4 During the pendency after rival pleadings the Sponsoring Union abruptly stopped representing the hearing of the
proceeding despite granted adjournments and notices. Considering age of the Reference being stale one and without
any representation from workmen, it deserves early disposal.
5. From the facts and materials on records it transpires that the Sponsoring Union does not seem to be
interested to adjudicate the matter on contest. So the proceeding is closed being devoid of the merits as if no grievance
against the OP/management by the Union. Accordingly, the Reference is closed as “No claim” and so a “No Claim
Award” is passed.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1546.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
पंजाब एंड ᳲसंध बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (a 95/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-II)-42]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 95/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -1,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-42]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh.
Present: Sh. J.K. Tripathi, Presiding Officer.
ID No.95/2014
Registered on:-18.07.2014
3416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh S/o Shri Kulbeer Singh, Resident of House No.47, Gali No.8, New Jawahar Nagar,
Phase-2, Batala Road, Amritsar.
…….Workman
Versus
1. Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Amritsar.
2. Chief Manager, Guru Nanak Dev University, Punjab & Sind Bank, Amritsar.
..….Respondents/Managements
AWARD
Passed On:-03.07.2023
1.
The workman Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh has directly filed the present claim petition under Section under
Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman
along with continuity of service and full back wages.
2.
The brief facts for deciding this claim petition as per the claim of the workman is that the workman is
Matric pass and being qualified and eligible for the post of Peon. The workman was engaged by the Branch Manager
F.C. Road, Amritsar with the approval of Zonal manager of Amritsar as temporary Peon on 28.12.2004 at Rs.70/- per
day. W.e.f. March 2005, the workman was orally transferred to Branches under the Zonal Office Amritsar, namely
Jagdev Kalan Branch, Chowk Pragdas upto January 2010 and ultimately he was orally transferred to Guru Nanak Dev
University Branch where the workman joined as temporary Peon in February 2010 and was being paid Rs.120/- per
day. The workman who has worked as temporary Peon for about six years with the management but the services were
orally terminated in the month of January 2011 without giving notice of one month and retrenchment compensation in
violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, 1947. The management is required to maintain seniority list of its temporary
employees as per Industrial Disputes Rules 1956 but the management has not prepared/maintained any seniority list of
temporary Peon and thus, the management is adopting pick and choose policy while terminating the services of senior
and retaining the juniors in violation of Section 25-G. Not only this, the management is engaging the fresh temporary
Peon in the Zonal Office, Amritsar without giving preference to the seniors retrenched Peon like workman in violation
of Section 25-H of the ID Act, 1947. The action of the management orally transferring the workman to various Branch
in the same Zonal Office and ultimately terminating the service of workman amount unfair labour practice of
management and violating section 25-T of the ID Act, 1947. In view of the facts stated above, it is therefore prayed
that the management be directed to reinstate the workman into service w.e.f. January, 2011 along with continuity of
service and full back wages in the interest of justice.
3.
The management has filed written statement, alleging therein that after a lapse of more than 2-1/2 years, no
industrial dispute could be treated to have arisen/existed and as such the workman is not entitled to any relief. The
workman was engaged in the bank to meet the intermittent exigencies of service and that too without following the
principles envisaged under Articles 14/16 of the Constitution of India for making public appointments/ engagements.
The workman has no right for regularization/ continuation in the service of the bank nor he has any legally defensible
right for reinstatement in service of the bank. It is now well settled law that the Casual Workers/Daily Wagers and
temporary employees engaged without following the procedure for making regular appointments are not entitled to
protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reference is drawn to a Division Bench judgment of
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as 2003(5) SLR 766 The Head Master, Government High School,
Behrana Vs. Ajit Singh & Anr., wherein it was held that all the appointments on government jobs have to be made in
accordance with the statutory rules and where entry of workman into service was backdoor entry, provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. In the case reported 1997 LIC 2075 Himanshu Kumar
Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that termination of services of
employee appointed on the basis of need or work cannot be construed to be retrenchment. The plea of the workers in
the said case that their services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was
rejected. A person engaged unauthorisedly has no right to continue in service. A large number of temporary
employees were engaged in different Public Sector Banks. The matter was seized by the Ministry of Finance which
appointed the Committee to look into the matter. The committee framed its guidelines in 1989 and on the basis of such
guidelines, the Ministry of Finance issued directions to the Banks to sort out the matter of temporary employees in
accordance with such guidelines. Following the directions of the Government, Bank entered into settlements dated
16.10.1992 and 13.08.1994 with majority of recognized workmen-union of the Bank according to which all those
persons who have worked in the Bank continuously for 240 days in 12 consecutive months were to be regularized
subject to availability of vacancies. The cut-off date of having completed 240 days was 31.12.1989. It was also stated
in the settlements that since all the persons have not been recruited through Employment Exchange, the Bank had to
seek exemption from the Directorate of Employment before appointing such persons. Strict instructions were issued
from time to time by the Bank pursuant to the Government guidelines that “no fresh temporary persons/casual workers
should be appointed by any Branch manager and anybody violating the same shall be personally liable for the same”.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3417
The workman was not covered under the Settlements referred above and as such, the workman has no right for
continuation/reinstatement in service of the Bank. In view of the facts explained above, it is therefore prayed that the
claim of the workman is absolutely devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected/decline.
4.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal on 03.07.2023, the case was fixed for evidence
of the workman. Earlier Sh. R.P. Rana was engaged as AR for workman. today he is withdrawing his authority letter.
He is permitted to withdraw his authority letter. A fresh notice was issued to the workman on earlier request of Sh.
R.P. Rana, AR of workman. Notice was issued by the office. No registered notice has come back. It is presumed that
notice is properly served upon the workman but the workman has not turned up in person. It appears that the workman
has no interest to further proceed the case. Therefore, the case is dismissed in default for the non-prosecution of the
workman.
5.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1547.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सᱶᮝल बᱹक ऑफ इंिडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV (a 01 (C ) of 2021) izdkf”r djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-II)-43]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01 (C ) of 2021) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2023- IR(B-II)-43]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before the Presiding OfficerIndustrial Tribunal, Patna.
Reference Case No.:- 01 (C) of 2021
Between the management of (1) The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India , Maurya Lok Complex,
3rd Floor, Patna-800001 (2) The Asstt. General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Alalpatti, PO-
DMCH, Distt.- Darbhanga-846004, Bihar and Their workman Sri Bimal Chandra Mishra, C/O- Dr. S.M. Kolay
Building, 1st Floor, J.M. Road, Gali No.-1 PO- Lalbagh, Opp Sambadana Hospital, Dist.- Darbhanga-460001.
For the management:-
Sri Siddharth Harsh ( Advocate ).
no.-(1) & (ii)
For the workman:-
Sri Krishna Kumar, (Advocate)
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated- 20th July, 2023
By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID(4)/2020/Dy CLC-Pt dated- 08.01.2021 the Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour& Employment, Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Maurya Lok Complex,
A Block, 2nd Floor, Room No.-6,16,& 17, Patna-800001 has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) of Section-10
of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the following dispute between (1)
3418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India , Maurya Lok Complex, 3rd Floor, Patna-800001 (2) The Asstt. General
Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Alalpatti, PO-DMCH, Distt.- Darbhanga-846004, Bihar and Their
workman Sri Bimal Chandra Mishra, C/O- Dr. S.M. Kolay Building, 1st Floor, J.M. Road, Gali No.-1 PO- Lalbagh,
Opp Sambadana Hospital, Dist.- Darbhanga-460001 for adjudication to this tribunal:-
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India imposing the punishment of dismissal from service
on the workman Sri Bimal Chandra Mishra is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
After receipt of the reference / notification, notice was issued to the parties concerned. Both parties appeared
before this tribunal and filed Statement of claim and written statement respectively.
3.
Briefly stated the case of the workman is that vide memo no.- Ro/DA/2014-15/41 dt- 03.11.2014 the
disciplinary authority i.e Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Darbhanga had issue a charge sheet against the
workman ( Sri Bimal Chandra Mishra ) making allegation as charge no.-1 ( One Sri Sunil Kumar Choudhary
deposited cash of Rs. 36000/- on 30.05.2011 at Singhwara Branch in the CKCC account, this account was received by
workman (CSE ) at cash counter of the said branch but the amount was not credited to the account of said person. It is
alleged that the petitioner /workman acted fraudulently and misappropriate the bank fund, above act of omission and
commission by the workman are malafide intention and prejudicial to the instant of the bank and falls with gross
misconduct as per clause 19.5(j) of DAP for workman dt- 10.04.2022. It is further asserted that the charge was
enquired and as per finding of enquiry officer the charge was proved and awarded punishment by dismissing without
notice under clause 6(A) of the DAP for the workman dt- 10.04.2022 and the said punishment had been inflicted dt-
06.08.2015. It is further asserted that the workman preferred an appeal against the said enquiry order before the
Appellate Authority which was disposed on 01.02.2016 without giving any relief to the workman. It is further asserted
that the workman moved before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna in CWJC No.- 4747 of 2016 for quashing the said
punishment and appellate order but during the pendency of the said writ petition, the workman also moved before the
Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) raising the Industrial Dispute against the penalty and the assailed the order
of Appellate Authority under section-12 of the Industrial Dispute Act due to which the Hon’ble High Court, Patna
disposed the writ petition vide order dt- 21.11.2019. It is further asserted that after failure of conciliation Govt. of
India, Ministry of Labour & Employment referred the matter before this tribunal. It is further asserted the alleged
irregularity was committed in the bank on 30.05.2011. However the departmental proceeding initiated by issuing
charge sheet to the workman on 30.11.2014 after more than three years, while such cash shortage incident can not be
left for a day as a matter of principle and not beyond as a matter of general practice accordingly the delayed initiation
of proceeding which is bad in law. It is further asserted that in the charge sheet it is shown gross misconduct done by
as per clause 19.5(j) of sub clause of the DAP for the workman of dt- 10.04.2022. However, DAP does not contain any
clause like wise 19.5 (j). As the said documents contain only 16 clauses, hence all action of the bank to proceed under
the said clause against the workman has become in effective and baseless and the same is fit to be set aside. It is
further asserted that the petitioner / workman was posted at Singhwara branch in December 2010 when the CBS
system was not running in the said branch. On 30.05.2011 the workman received Rs. 36,000/- of the account holder
against which he issued manual receipt, entered into CBS system, deposited in the bank locker but the said fact has
been confirmed on physical verification of the account at the time of closure of the bank on that day, however, during
physical verification on 14.06.2011 the said amount was entered in the system on that day, he was absent from the
duty. It is further asserted that the workman has placed the supportive documents of cash receipt as much of the
voucher cash balance register and CBS GL and cash balance but none of the documents has properly been considered
by enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority, while awarding major punishment. It is further asserted that real
fact is there was no shortage of cash on 30.05.2011 and only the voucher was not posted in the party account which
was not my responsibility by the workman as a receiving head cashier. Non posting of voucher does not mean that
cash so received from the duty has been kept by the workman and taken out of the bank, moreover, correction dt-
14.06.2011 has not been done by the workman. It is further asserted that the amount transferred to volt on 14.06.2011,
on that day the workman was on leave however, safe was closed Rs. 36,000/- less. So allegation regarding defalcation
and misappropriation is false and concocted. It is further asserted that the workman served the bank to the best of his
ability and with full satisfaction to the higher authority and retired from bank w.e.f 31.03.2016. However, at last stage
of his service major punishment has been awarded to the workman without verification of records. It is further asserted
that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is contrary to the law and the proceeding has initiated after
three years of alleged occurrence is also contrary by the Bi-partite settlement and Sastri award so the impugned order
has deposed by the management / bank is bad in law and fit to be set aside. The workman sought following relief to set
aside the order dt- 06.08.2015 passed by the Asst. General Manager cum Disciplinary Authority and dismissal order
dt- 29.07.2015 and further setting aside the order dt- 01.02.2016 passed by the Dy. General Manager, Central Bank of
India by which wrong ful punishment of dismissal order has been confirmed. Further sought for relief for the payment
of back wages / salary from the date of dismissal with all consequential benefit till the date of retirement and there
upon all the remaining benefits including leave in cash and pensionary benefits arrear as well as amount pension to the
workman with 15% compound interest with cost for the ends of justice.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3419
4.
On other hand the management bank also filed written statement mentioning therein the claim of the
workman is not maintainable either in law are in facts. It is further asserted that employer /bank started a departmental
proceeding against the workman on the charge that one borrower namely Sushil Kumar Choudhary had deposited cash
of Rs. 36,000/- on 30.05.2011 in his CKCC loan account bearing account no.- 2241733201 at Sigghwara branch of
Central Bank of India. The amount was received by the workman at cash counter, but the same was not credited to
CKCC loan account of the borrower. For this misconduct, the bank served a charge sheet on 03.11.2014 to the
complainant / CSE ( Workman ) appointing Sri Anil Kumar, Manager, Darbhanga branch of Central Bank of India as a
enquiry officer. It is further asserted that the Disciplinary Authority vide order dt-07.11.2014 appointed Sri Binod
Kumar Sinha, Assistant Manager, Regional Office, Darbhanga as presenting officer. It is further asserted that the
charges against claimant / workman (CSE ) are grave in nature which including non – credit of the amount in CKCC
loan account of the depositor and in the light of said charges, the punishment awarded to the claimant is very much
justified. It is further asserted that the order of dismissal has been passed by the management only after proving the
charges against the claimant. Disciplinary Authority has clearly observed that cash of Rs. 36,000/- received by the
charge sheeted employee / workman (CSE) on 30.05.2011 from Sri Sushil Kumar Choudhary was not deposited in his
CKCC account on30.05.2011. The argument of defence has that this account was Rs. 36,000/- was credited in the
CKCC account of depositor on 14.06.2011. It is further asserted that on perusal of the defence Ext.-ix (DEX-IX) the
disciplinary authority observed that as on 14.06.2011 expected closing balance ( excluding balance in Vault ) was Rs.
36,000/- and account actual to Volt was 24,79,251/- and amount actually transferred to vault was 24,43,251/-. This
amount transferred to vault by less Rs. 36,000/-. This amount of Rs. 36,000/- credited on 14.06.2011 in CKCC account
no.- 2241733201 was superfluous entry which was further reversed and corrected on 06.08.2011 which was evident
from management Ext. ( MEX-V). It is further asserted that defence Ext. ( DEX-X) that link was regular and system of
the branch was also working properly and the management Ext. (MEX-3) clearly shows the voucher was being posted
by the CSE / workman. It is further asserted that the disciplinary proceeding has been conducted by the management
following the principles of natural justice. After issuance of memo of charge, the claimant /workman (CSE) filed his
show cause and during enquiry the claimant was given adequate opportunity to cross examine the management witness
and to rebut the management documents and thereafter, he was also given opportunity to adduce his evidence. It is
further asserted that the claimant has brought on record 15 defence documents but he did not produce any witness. It is
further asserted that the claimant has wrongly say that the management initiated a delayed departmental proceeding as
it was initiated during the service period of the claimant as such there is no illegality in such initiation. It is further
asserted that the claimant of the claim is misleading about clause 19.5(j) of the DAP dt- 10.04.2002 i.e nothing but a
typographical error that does not mean the order of dismissal passed is beyond the settled regulation of DAP. It is
further asserted that it was duty of the claimant to make entry in the CBS system of the bank, when he received deposit
of Rs. 36,000/- from the depositor. The findings of the enquiry officer clearly shows that how such entry was not made
and on complaint being made by the depositor on 14.06.2011, the bank credited the loan account of the depositor of
Rs. 36,000/- which was although received by the claimant on 30.05.2011 itself. It is further asserted that among several
deposit and withdrawal only one deposit was left by the claimant which was a deliberate effort. Accordingly the
claimant of the claim is fit to be dismissed.
5.
On the basis of rival pleadings the following issues has to be adjudicated
(i)
“ Whether the punishment as imposed by the management against the workman dismissal from his service is
fair, legal and justified?
(ii)
“ What other relief the workman is entitled to?”
6.
In order to establish this claim the workman side examined only one
Witness namely i.e Sri Bimal Chandra Mishra as W.W-1 the workman himself. Besides oral evidence some documents
has been filed by the workman side and the same is marked exhibited as:-
(a)
Ext.-W-
Voucher of 30.05.2011 in the name of Sri Sushil Kumar
Choudhary to amount of Rs. 36,000/-.
(b)
Ext.-W/1-
Entries of dt-30.05.2011 in transfer entries book.
(c)
Ext.-W/2-
Photo copy of cash balance register dt-30.05.2011.
(d)
Ext.-W/3-
CBS System of ZL on line report dt-30.05.2011.
(e)
Ext.-W/4-
Final order of Appellate Authority dt-01.02.2016.
(f)
Ext.-W/5-
Photo copy of attendance register dt-13.06.2011,
14.06.2011 and 15.06.2011
7.
On the other hand in support of his claim, the management / bank examined one witness namely Sri Bimlesh
Kumar as M.W-1 and besides oral evidence some documents are filed by the management side and marked the same
as Exts. That is a under:-
3420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
Ext.-M & M/1-
Photo copy of deposit slip of customer of Sushil Kumar
Choudhary of dt- 30.05.2011 and 14.06.2011 respectively.
2. Ext.-M/2-
Cash Transfer report of dt- 30.05.2011 issued from Central Bank of India, Head
Office, Bombay.
3.
Ext.-M/3-
Statement of transaction of dt-30.05.2011 of Central Bankof India, Singhwara
Branch.
4. Ext.-M/4-
Photo copy of entries of the pass book of Sushil Kumar Choudhary of
dt- 30.05.2011.
5.
Ext.-M/5-
Photo copy of complaint petition filed by the depositor Sushil Kumar Choudhary.
6.
Ext.-M/6-
Charge sheet of alleged witness filed by the bank on dt-03.11.2014 as drawn
against Bimal Chandra Mishra.
7. Ext.-M/7-
Letter of dt- 15.11.2014 issued by enquiry officer Sri Anil Kumar with enquiry
proceeding stating from 22.11.2014 to 02.06.2015 i.e in the pen of signature of
enquiry officer Sri Anil Kumar.
8.
Ext.-M/8-
Enquiry report dt- 18.06.2015.
9.
Ext.-M/9-
Administration order dt- 06.08.2015 final order issue bythe disciplinary authority.
10.
Ext.-M/10-
Order of Appellate Authority dt-01.02.2016.
8.
First of all this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of workman W.W-1 Bimal Chandra Mishra who stated before
this tribunal that he joined Central Bank of India, Singhwara branch upon transfer from Koila Asthan branch in the
year 2010. He joined as a head cashier. This witness further stated that the singhwara branch started working in CBS
system from the end of 2010. This witness further stated that he was in practice of working in computer system at koila
asthan branch but he had to work in CBS system at singhwara branch for which he was not so much conversant to the
system. Moreover, no training to work in CBS system is given. This witness further stated that he found the work of
customer was taken in CBS system and then its accounting was maintained manually in to the cash department that’s
why there was some difference in cash between CBS system and manually accounting from very begining. This
witness further stated that the work of deposit and withdrawal was a duty of SWOA at the counter, since there was
only one SWOA the singhwara branch on 30.05.2011. He sat on the cash counter. This witness further stated that the
deposit amount was used to scroll in deposit register of the bank. On that very day he was making entry of the
deposited amount in deposit register. This witness further stated that after banking hour one customer Sushil Kumar
Choudhary has given Rs. 36,000/- for credit in CKCC account no.- 2241733201. He was under impression the amount
given by Sushil Kumar Choudhary is of loan payment then he made entry in the cash register at serial no.-8 and
thereafter, he started counting the cash, what ever the cash balance on 28.05.2011 he found, he added the deposited
amount of 30.05.2011 and also add the amount he made entry at no.-8 of the scroll and he handover all the vouchers
and cash to the officer Sri Triloki Nand Choudhary vault for its verification that’s why, by mistake he could not make
entry of Rs. 36,000/- (the entry of scroll-8) in CBS system. This witness further stated that officer Sri Choudhary
verified the cash balance on that very date. Since the entry of Rs. 36,000/- already maintained in cash deposit register
there was no excess cash left to him. This witness further stated that the verification of excess cash used to reflect by
GL within 24-48 hours. This is the duty of the verification officer to check the vouchers and its posting and if officer
finds excess cash and it has to be intimated by the officer himself. This witness stated that wrong charge sheet has been
drawn against him under clause 19.5(J) of DAP. This witness further stated that he has shown the physical excess of
amount Rs. 39,000/- of dt- 30.05.2011 to the Appellate Authority through the register, Rs. 36,000/- was of the
customer Sudhir and another Rs.3000/- was of another customer the old lady that was debited from her account. When
the difference of Rs. 3000/- was found, he has given 3000/- Rs to volt tellor officer who made entry in the system.
This witness further stated that he received charge sheet in the year 2014 after three years of the alleged incident. This
witness further stated that he had raised the matter about the excess amount Rs. 36,000/- before the Disciplinary
Authority, who reported bank was closed with less of Rs. 36,000/- on 14.06.2011 for which he is liable. However, he
was on leave on 14.06.2011. In spite of all pleading taken by him disciplinary authority has dismissed him wrongly
without any proof. This witness further stated that vigilance officer Mr. Rajesh Sexana has taken his statement and
inspected the matter on that basis the appellate authority told he has recommended to turn down the dismissal order
but dismissal order is remained effective. This witness further stated that bank was never in financial loss of Rs.
36,000/- because cash Rs. 36,000/- is very much in safe of the bank but yet bank has deducted Rs. 57302/- including
interest from the gratuity. This witness further stated that bank still did not deposit the 36,000/- Rs. In the account of
the said customer. This witness further stated that his dismissal is quite wrong that should be set aside and bank should
pay eight months salary and his post retiral benefits.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-10 that his employee code is 55008. This
witness admits in cross-examination that on 30.05.2011 he was working at cash counter and he made 55 entries in
system on that day but he categorically denied that he deliberately did not make entry of Rs.36,000/- received from the
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3421
Sushil Kumar Choudhary in system. In para-15 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that after
collecting the vouchers in a bunch then its posting was made in CBS system. In para-16 of the cross-examination this
witness admits that he was not making entry of deposit in CBS system at once. He used to load entry of all the deposit
slips in CBS system at a time. In para-18 this witness categorically denied that he has not reported the case of old lady
earlier. In para-20 this witness categorically denied that he has kept Rs.36,000/- received from Sushil Kumar
Choudhary. In para-23 this witness admits that if the entry of in amount is not made in CBS system then that amount
will be excess amount in cash balance. Further this witness denied this facts that he deliberately did not make entry of
the said received money in CBS system for which department has given correct punishment.
9.
Now this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of management witness namely M.W-1 Vikesh Karn. Who stated
before this tribunal that he is posted as a manager H.R department in Regional Office, of Central Bank of India,
Darbhanga. This witness also stated that Bimal Chandra Mishra was posted as head cashier in Singhwara branch of
Central Bank of India in the year-2011, who also has a good experience of working on computer. This witness further
stated that on 30.05.2011 one customer Sushil Kumar Choudhary deposited Rs.36,000/- in his CKCC account. The
deposit amount was received by the Bimal Chandra Mishra. This witness further stated that on 14.06.2011 the same
customer came to branch to deposit Rs.10,000/- in his CKCC account and he did not find the entry of earlier deposited
Rs. 36,000/- in his account then he made complaint. This witness further proved the photo copy of customer copy of
deposit amount Rs.36,000/- of 30.05.2011 and photo copy of customer copy on dt-14.06.2011 amounting Rs. 10,000/-
that is marked as Ext.- M & M/1 respectively. This witness further proved the bank copy of deposit of Rs. 36,000/- of
dt- 30.05.2011 by Sushil Kumar Choudhary as marked as Ext.- M/2. This witness further stated bank has produced the
details of all transaction of dt- 30.05.2011 this statement is in seven pages in which the deposit of Rs.36,000/- as made
by Sushil Kumar Choudhary on 30.05.2011 is not shown further and this witness proved the cash transaction statement
of dt- 30.05.2011 as marked Ext.-M/3. This witness further stated that there is initial of the clerk over the deposit slips
produced by the bank i.e Ext.- M & M/1, M/2 but he can not say the name the clerk who signed on the voucher. This
witness further proved the photo copy of the pass book of customer Sushil Kumar Choudhary bearing account no.-
2241733201 in which there is no entry of Rs. 36,000/- on dt-30.05.2011 i.e marked as Ext.-M/4. This witness further
stated that when the Sushil Kumar Choudhary did not find entry of his deposit amount in his account then he filed a
complaint. This witness proved the photo copy of complaint given by the Sushil Kumar Choudhary in the Regional
Office i.e marked as Ext.-M/5. This witness further stated that Bimal Chandra Mishra has been transferred to the
Hanuman Nagar branch and on 03.11.2014 he was serving in hanuman nagar branch. This witness further stated that
on 03.11.2014 bank has served a charge sheet to Bimal Chandra Mishra and this witness further proved the charge
sheet dt- 03.11.2014 along with list of document and witness list i.e marked as Ext.- M/6. This witness further stated
that domestic enquiry was initiated against the Bimal Chandra Mishra from 15.11.2014 and it was concluded on
02.06.2015. The enquiry was conducted by Anil Kumar and he proved the enquiry proceeding that is in pen and
signature of Anil Kumar i.e marked as Ext.- M/7. This witness also stated that the officer Anil Kumar never worked
with him. This witness further proved the enquiry report submitted by enquiry officer Sri Anil Kumar on 18.06.2015
i.e marked as Ext.-M/8. This witness further proved the final order of disciplinary authority dt- 06.08.2015 along with
the administrative order i.e given by U.N.Giri the disciplinary authority i.e marked as Ext.- M/9. This witness further
prove the order of the Appellate Authority dt-01.02.2016 in which the Appellate Authority (DGM) confirmed the order
of the disciplinary authority i.e marked as Ext.- M/10.
In cross-examination this witness admits in para-23 that he was posted in Singhwara branch for only three
days but he does not remember the dates of his posting. In para-25 of the cross-examination this witness categorically
stated that Central Bank adopted the CBS system from 2009-10. In para-27 this witness categorically stated prior to
joining in Central Bank in the year-2013, he was not aware about the working system of Central Bank. In para-29 of
the cross-examination this witness proved the voucher dt-30.05.2011 that is deposit voucher of Rs.36,000/- i.e marked
as Ext.-W. This witness further stated that there is no register like transfer book entry is maintained in the bank. In
para-31 of cross-examination this witness admits that the documents filed by the workman showing the two pages of
transfer book register of dt-30.05.2011 is the document of his bank and he proved the document i.e is marked Ext.-
W/1. This witness also admits that the entry of Rs. 36,000/- is shown at serial no.-8 of document marked as Ext.-W/1.
In para-33 of the cross-examination this witness admits that bank maintains the cash balance register and he proved the
copy of cash balance register of dt-30.05.2011 i.e marked as Ext.-W/2. In para-34 of cross-examination this witness
admits that the G.L on line report of dt-30.05.2011 as shown to him i.e not complete and he proved the on line GL
report of dt.-30.05.2011 i.e marked as Ext.-W/3. In para-36 of cross-examination this witness categorically stated that
bank working was in CBS system in the year 2011-12 but he can not say how the bank working was conducted if CBS
system fails. In para-37 cross-examination this witness categorically stated that the documents as shown by the
workman side is the order of Appellate Authority on page-20 in which the last line of the report its written cash of the
dt-i.e 30.05.2011 was closed on basis of manual cash receipt payment register and CBS cash balance was not taken.
This finding of the Appellate Authority is prove i.e marked as Ext.-W/4. This witness admits that in para-38 of cross-
examination if by mistake any entry is not made in any account that can be corrected on the basis of the complaint.
This witness categorically admits in para-39 he cannot say whether the cash closing of singhwara branch on dt-
30.05.2011 was made on the basis of manual or CBS system. In para -40 of this cross-examination this witness further
proved the copy of the attendance register dt-13.06.2011, 14.06.2011 and 15.06.2011 produced by Bimal Chandra
3422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mishra i.e marked as Ext.- W/5. This witness also admits that Bimal Chandra Mishra is absent on 14.06.2011 as per
attendance sheet. This witness also stated in cross-examination that he cannot say the departmental proceeding
initiated against the workman was from 30.11.2014 and he further denied the workman has committed any wrong on
30.05.2011 as deposited amount is in the bank record and the deposited amount of the said date is in the bank entry.
10
It is argued on behalf of the workman that the alleged irregularity was set to be committed to the bank on
30.05.2011 but the departmental proceeding was initiated after more than three years after issuance a charge sheet on
03.11.2014. Delayed initiating of departmental proceeding without giving any explanation is bad in law and it is
against the principle of natural justice. Moreover, domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is wholly
perverse, erroneous and based on mechanical facts. Enquiry officer did not consider the management exhibits as well
as defence exhibits in right prospective and arrived on wrong findings. It is further argued that during the departmental
enquiry on the day of 9th sitting the management witness Sri Anil Kumar clearly accepted that the amount Rs. 36,000/-
has been received by the workman i.e shown at serial no.-8 i.e related with the account of Sri Sushil Kumar Choudhary
and the witness also admitted that the closing balance of 30.05.2011 was Rs. 23,22,103/- including the Rs. 36,000/- but
enquiry officer did not consider the evidence of management in right prospective. It is further argued that the
Disciplinary Authority has not considered the facts that workman received the cash which is reflecting in cash receipt
book at serial no.-8 of cash register. It is also argued that there was no shortage of cash on 30.05.2011. The document
produced by the management side and as well as by defence side show that the received cash on dt-30.05.2011 is in the
chest of the bank. It is further argued that after punishment order dt- 23.06.2015 the workman made complaint before
the Disciplinary Authority (AGM), Dharbhanga on 11.07.2015 and also to the Appellate Authority-cum-Zonal
Manager, Patna on 11.01.2016 stating all the facts with regard to non-consideration of the evidence and documents by
enquiry officer i.e established by the Exts of workman side Ext.-W to W/5 i.e proved by the management witness
before this tribunal but disciplinary and appellate authority did not consider it. It is further argued that the Appellate
Authority also clearly mentioned in its order that cash of the day of dt-30.05.2011 at Singhwara branch was closed on
the basis of manual cash receipt payment register and CBS cash balance was not taken and i.e also admitted by the
management witness before this tribunal but without discussing the point raised by the workman the disciplinary
authority and appellate authority has passed a perverse order and no reason is assigned for upholding the dismissal
order i.e against the principle of natural justice. It is further argued that the workman has thoroughly corroborated his
case before this tribunal through his evidence. However, the management side neither produced the enquiry officer nor
presenting officer before this tribunal to establish the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was just and fair rather
management witness who deposed before this tribunal formally proved the enquiry proceeding and report of enquiry
officer and simultaneously accepted this facts that the never worked with the enquiry officer during his tenure. It is
also argued that the charge and followed by enquiry conducted by enquiry officer was not fair and proper and
thereafter imposing a major punishment is totally bad in law.
11.
It is argued on behalf of the management that upon detection of irregularity committed by the workman Sri
Bimal Chandra Mishra on 30.05.2011 as Bimal Chandra Mishra after receiving amount of Rs. 36,000/- from one
customer Sri Sushil Kumar Choudhary but not credited in the CKCC account of the said customer by workman for
which charge sheet was issued to the workman on 03.11.2014 for the departmental proceeding. It has been further
argued that departmental proceeding has been thoroughly conducted by the enquiry officer giving ample opportunity
to the workman to defend his charges but workman failed to disprov the charges as levelled against him and finally the
enquiry officer found guilty the workman for not crediting the received amount of Rs. 36,000/- in the CKCC account
of customer of Sushil Kumar Choudhary. It is further argued that on the basis of the enquiry report the workman has
placed his contention before the disciplinary authority but disciplinary authority also did not find any infirmity in the
of the enquiry officer and there by passed the dismissal order against the workman Sri Bimal Chandra Mishra that was
upheld by the appellate authority after securitizing the plea taken by the workman. It is further argued that the
management side has placed the enquiry proceeding register i.e (Ext.-M/7), enquiry report of the enquiry officer of
dated- 18.06.2015 i.e (Ext.-M/8) and final order dt- 06.08.2015 i.e (Ext.-M/9) and order the appellate authority dt-
01.02.2016 i.e (Ext.-M/10) in support of management version. It is also argued that the one witness from the
management side namely Sri Bikesh Karn the manager, working in HR department of Regional Office of Cental Bank
of India also supported the management version before this tribunal accordingly the imposed the punishment of
dismissal from the service of the workman Bimal Chandra Mishra is totally fair, legal and justified.
12.
Considering all the facts & circumstances of the case and on securitizing the material available on the record
as discussed above and the submissions as advanced on behalf of the both sides, this tribunal finds that Bimal Chandra
Mishra (workman ) was working in the Singhwara Branch of Central Bank of India as a Cashier. This tribunal further
finds that while working in bank on 30.05.2011 this workman had received Rs. 36,000/- cash from one customer
Sushil Kumar Choudhary for his CKCC account but it could not be entered in CBS system but the transaction amount
was well maintained by the workman in cash balance register dt- 30.05.2011 along with other entries i.e (Ext.-W/2) i.e
well admitted by the management witness namely Bikesh Karn during the course of the cross-examination. This
tribunal find that the management also admitted this facts that the appellate authority in his order has mentioned that
the bank cash of day of dt-30.05.2011 ( alleged incident date ) was closed on the basis of manual cash receipt payment
register and the CBS cash balance was not taken. This findings is shown in the order of the appellate authority i.e
(Ext.-W/4 ). This tribunal find that the alleged allegation against the workman for not crediting the amount of Rs.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3423
36,000/- in the CKCC account of customer Sushil Kumar Choudhary is completed by the manager of the bank by
entering the amount in the CKCC account of Sushil Kumar Choudhary on 14.06.2011 finding the said amount was not
credited in the account of workman by mistake. This tribunal further finds that on 14.06.2011 the workman was on
leave i.e proved by the workman vide Ext.-W/5. This tribunal further finds that enquiry conducted by the enquiry
officer Sri Anil Kumar did not follow the right procedure of conducting the enquiry and also did not appreciate the
defence version recorded by the enquiry officer himself during the course of the proceeding i.e evident from (Ext.-
M/7). Enquiry proceeding register shows that enquiry officer inquired the representative of the defence only and never
gave opportunity to workman to produce any witness during the course of enquiry. Moreover this tribunal further finds
that bank manager of the Singhwara Branch never made any complaint for the alleged incident of dated 30.05.2011 as
shown by the management and moreover there is no FIR lodged from the management bank for the alleged irregularity
committed by the workman as claimed by the management, why the bank did not register the FIR against the workman
reasons best known to the management bank. This tribunal further find that virtually bank found that there has no
physical loss of money accrued to the bank, that’s why bank could not surface the alleged irregularity for three years
before sending a charge sheet to the workman on 03.11.2014. This tribunal further find no reason assigned by the bank
management for initiation of departmental proceeding after long gap of more than three years without holding a
preliminary enquiry on this aspect is completely violation of principle of natural justice. This tribunal further finds that
the management side did not produce any authentic witness before this tribunal that could satisfy the claim of the
management rather bank just produced a formal witness who never worked with the workman and with the enquiry
officer as well as presenting officer because the management witness himself admitted before this tribunal he joined
the Central Bank of India in the year 2013. This tribunal further finds the workman side thoroughly proved his version
the received amount of Rs. 36,000/- from a customer Sushil Kumar Choudhary on 30.05.2011 was within custody of
bank’s cash chest that is evident from the entry cash balance register of dt-30.05.2011 i.e (Ext.-W/2). This tribunal
further finds that management side has been failed to discard the testimony of workman before this tribunal. This
tribunal further find that on the basis of defective departmental proceeding as conducted by the enquiry officer, the
finding of enquiry officer and order of disciplinary authority and appellate authority was not correct and proper. This
tribunal further finds that the workman was on the verge of retirement at the time of passing final order there was no
adverse remarks against the workman ( Bimal Chandra Mishra ) for his services given to the bank earlier but the bank
management did not consider its and imposed major punishment of dismissal from the service is not fair, legal and
justified. Thus on the scanning of all the materials available on the records as discussed above this tribunal finds and
hold that the imposing of punishment of dismissal from the service of the workman (Bimal Chandra Mishra ) is not
fair, legal and justified.
13. The case record shows that the workman has already retired from the service on 31.03.2016. Accordingly bank
is directed to make payment of retrial benefits and the salary accrued from 06.08.2015 when the dismissal order was
passed by the bank management till the retirement of the workman dt-31.03.2016 within the two month’s after
publishing / gazette of award. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1548.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj खास कजोरा कोिलयरी ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/96/2015-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 03/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Khas
Kajora Colliery E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023
[No. L-22012/96/2015-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Director
3424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 03 OF 2016
PARTIES: Birendra Kumar Nonia
Vs.
Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
04.08.2023
AWARD
In exercise of power conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/96/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2015 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Agent, Khas Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL is illegal denial of employment to
Shri Birendra Kumar Nonia, son of late Ramdeo Nonia is legal and justified. If not, what relief the
workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/96/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2015 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 03 of 2016 was registered on
08.01.2016 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Birendra Kumar Nonia, son of the deceased workman Ramdeo Nunia and filed a written statement on
16.03.2016 through the President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress. The crux of the partitioner’s case is that Ramdeo
Nunia was a permanent employee under ECL and was posted as a Security Guard at Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL.
Ramdeo Nunia died on 15.10.1995 while he was inservice. The wife of the deceased employee Smt. Ahilya Devi
applied before the company for her employment but the prayer was disallowed on the ground that she was more than
forty-five (45) years of age on the date of her husband. It is contended that the company did not refer the wife of the
deceased employee for assessment of her age by the Medical Board. Referring to the provisions of Implementation
Instruction No. 76 (hereinafter referred to as II No. 76) it is claimed that the wife should have been sent for medical
examination for determination of her age. The management instead of determining the age of the wife offered her
monetary compensation in lieu of employment, which she refused. The wife of Ramdeo Nunia thereafter applied for
providing employment to Birendra Kumar Nonia, her son and submitted relevant documents. It is claimed that
according to the Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of National Coal Wage Agreement - V (hereinafter referred to as NCWA - V) the
name of the son can be kept in the Live Roster till the son attains the age of eighteen (18) years and the wife of the
deceased is entitled to get monetary compensation till employment is given to the dependent son. It is contended that
the provisions of NCWA have not been followed as the age of the dependent was not decided by the Initial Medical
Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME) and his prayer for employment was rejected in illegal manner.
3.
According to the dependent of the deceased employee after receiving the proposal for employment for the
son, management rejected the claim on the plea that the dependent son was below eighteen years of age. According to
II No. 76, dependent son should be medically examined and his age should be decided by the IME Board as per
Medical Jurisprudence and if he is a matriculate then the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate should be
accepted, but in the instant case the guidelines issued by the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry
(hereinafter referred to as JBCCI) was not followed and the management deliberately denied the dependent son’s
claim for employment. It is urged that the son of Ramdeo Nunia has no source of income and should be provided
employment in place of his father under the Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA – V and other consequential benefits.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3425
4.
The management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL filed their written statement on 15.11.2016 denying the
claim for employment of Birendra Kumar Nonia. The management contended that the provisions of NCWA – V was
in force when Ramdeo Nunia died on 15.10.1995. According to the Clause 9.3.1 of NCWA – V :“Employment would
be provided to one dependent of the worker who are disabled permanently and also those who die while in service.”
Clause 9.3.2. provided that :“Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as
female dependents are concerned, their employment / payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para
9.5.0.” Management admitted that Smt. Ahilya Devi, the widow applied for compassionate appointment but she could
not be given employment as she was more than forty-five (45) years of age. Subsequently, she applied for
employment of her son Birendra Kumar Nonia, who was not eligible for employment on the ground of being underage
i.e. twelve (12) years and six (6) months at the time of death of his father. The widow of the deceased employee then
applied for monetary compensation and received monetary compensation till 2011, when she attained sixty (60) years
of age. The family of the deceased employee has no right for further employment and the Industrial Dispute raised on
behalf of the dependent of the deceased is liable to be dismissed.
5.
Birendra Kumar Nonia in support of his case filed an affidavit-in-chief wherein he stated that the
management did not assess the age of his mother, which should have been done according to the NCWA and II No. 76
issued by the Coal India Limited (CIL). It is also contended that the management refused to provide employment to
him on the plea that he was below eighteen years of age at the time of death of his father. Since his age was not
decided by the IME Board, the management violated the provisions of Bipartite agreement for the purpose of rejecting
his claim for employment. No document has been brought on record on behalf of the dependent of the deceased
workman. In course of cross-examination workman witness – 1 deposed that he was a student of Class VII in Khas
Kajora High School and was sixteen years old as per school certificate at the time of death of his father. The witness
stated that his date of birth as 26.01.1980 but he did not produce any certificate regarding his date of birth at the time
of evidence nor did he submit any document before the management while claiming his employment.
6.
The management in support of their case examined Mr. Praloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel) at Khas
Kajora Colliery of ECL as Management Witness – 1. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Smt. Ahilya Devi,
the widow who applied for employment on compassionate ground but was not found eligible as she was overage,
more than forty-five years. The widow of the deceased employee applied for employment of their son Birendra Kumar
Nonia and he too was found ineligible for employment as he was about twelve years and six months of age at the time
of death of the ex-employee. Further case of the management is that since Smt. Ahilya Devi was paid maintenance
allowance in lieu of employment, no dependent of the deceased was entitled to any employment. The documents
produced by the management are marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-6 and ‘x’ for identification. A Copy of letter dated
20.02.1998 issued by the Chief Personnel Manager to the widow of Ramdeo Nunia related to payment of maintenance
allowance of Rs.2000/- per month in lieu of employment has been marked as Exhibit M-1, in that letter it is further
communicated that since Smt. Ahilya Devi had crossed the outer age limit of forty-five years, she was only eligible to
monetary compensation under NCWA - V, which will continue till her attaining the age of superannuation or
death. A copy of letter dated 27.07.2001 issued by Smt. Ahilya Devi addressed to the Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery
of ECL has been marked as Exhibit M-2, in the said application she prayed for employment of her son. Exhibit M-1
and Exhibit M-3 are the same document. A copy of letter dated 03.08.1998 issued by the Deputy CME / Agent of
Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL addressed to Smt. Ahilya Devi has been marked as Exhibit M-4. In that letter it is
communicated that she has crossed the upper age limit of forty-five years therefore she has been granted Rs.2,000/-
per month as maintenance allowance. A copy of claim for maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month
from 03/1996 to 02/2004, in favour of Smt. Ahilya Devi has been produced as Exhibit M-5. A copy of claim for
monetary compensation dated 01.09.2011 for the month of 08/2011 has been marked as Exhibit M-6. In course of
cross-examination the Management witness admitted few documents produced on behalf of the workman. The
Manager of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL by their letter dated 21.08.2001 asked Birendra Kumar Nonia to appear
before the Screening Committee on 29.08.2001 for the purpose of his employment, the letter has been admitted as
Exhibit W-1. A copy of the report of the Screening Committee in respect of Birendra Kumar Nonia dated 30.08.2001,
in three pages has been collectively admitted as Exhibit W-2.
7.
It is now apposite to consider the fact of the case in the light of the evidence adduced by parties. Mr. Rakesh
Kumar, Union representative argued that according to the Screening Committee’s report (Ext. W-2) Birendra Kumar
Nonia was nineteen years of age at the time of assessment of his age on 30.08.2001. According to the provisions of II
No. 76, the age of Birendra Kumar Nonia ought to have been assessed by the IME Board for his employment but in
the present case the management violated the provisions by not assessing his age. It is further argued that according
to the Colliery Screening Committee report the committee recommended for employment of Birendra Kumar Nonia
in place of Ramdeo Nunia but no further action was taken for providing employment.
8.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management in reply argued that Smt. Ahilya Devi, the wife of the
deceased employee was more than forty-five years at the time of death of her husband and she was not eligible for her
employment according to the provisions of Clause 9.4.0 (iv) of NCWA - V where it is stated that woman up to the age
of thirty-five years would be eligible for employment. It is further argued that according to the Service Record Excerpt
(SRE) of the ex-employee Birendra Kumar Nonia was five years of age on 01.04.1987 and he was less than fifteen
3426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
years of age at the time of his father’s death. Therefore, under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA - V which was applicable
till 30.06.1997 his name could not be maintainable in the live roster for providing employment. It is argued that
Birendra Kumar Nonia is not entitled to employment according to the provisions of NCWA – V and the present case
is liable to be dismissed.
9.
It is admitted and agreed between the representatives of the employer company and the workman and laid in
Clause 9.3.1 of NCWA - V that employment would be provided to one dependent of workers who are disabled
permanently and also to those who die while in service. In Clause 9.3.2 it is provided that in case of female dependent
employment / payment of monetary compensation would be governed by Para 9.5.0. On a reading of the provisions in
Clause 9.4.0 (iv) it is gathered that the dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and
suitable for employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female
spouse would be 45 years as provided in Clause 9.5.0. In case where a female dependent is below the age of 45 years,
she will have the option either to accept 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA - V provides that if the female dependent is above forty-
five years of age she will be entitled only to monetary and not employment.
10.
In the case under consideration Smt. Ahilya Devi admittedly applied for employment soon after the death of
her husband. The management witness in his evidence stated that the prayer for employment of Smt. Ahilya Devi on
compassionate ground was not considered as she was more than forty-five years of age. An application of Smt. Ahilya
Devi addressed to the Deputy CME/Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL on 27.07.2001(Exhibit M-2) reveals that
she applied several times for providing employment to her as her son was underage. In letter dated 20.02.1998
(Exhibit M-3) the management of ECL informed Smt. Ahilya Devi that she had crossed her age limit of forty-five
years and she was only eligible for monetary compensation. This finding in my view has no foundation as Smt. Ahilya
Devi was not referred to any Medical Board for assessment of her age. Her age was neither assessed nor verified by
any Medical Board or any colliery officer according to II No. 76. If we refer to Exhibit W-2 which is a report of the
colliery screening committee it would appear that three officials i.e. Agent, Senior Account Officer, and Senior
Personnel Officer of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL on their satisfaction and eye estimation had assessed and
determined the age of Smt. Ahilya Devi, wife of Ramdeo Nunia as thirty-four years as on 0104.1987. This would
imply that at the time of death of her husband on 15.10.1995 her age would be less than forty-three years and by no
stretch of imagination the management of the company could have considered her age as more than forty-five years to
deprived her legitimate claim for employment, having four minor children at the time of her husband’s death. The
decision of the management of the ECL compelling Smt. Ahilya Devi to accept monetary compensation and denying
employment to her on the ground that she crossed forty-five years of age (Exhibit M-1) was unfounded, arbitrary and
unlawful.
11.
The screening committee report (Exhibit W-2) disclosed that when monetary compensation was offered to
Smt. Ahilya Devi, she did not agree to accept the same and again requested for employment. After her son attained
majority, she prayed for employment of her son Birendra Kumar Nonia and his sisters gave “no objection” in his
favour. According to the Service Record Excerpt of the deceased, Birendra Kumar Nonia was fourteen years of age at
the time of death of his father. No document in support of his date of birth or age of Birendra Kumar Nonia was
produced before the management. Under such circumstances the management of the company ought to have taken
recourse of II No. 76 for the purpose of assessing the age of an illiterate person for considering him for employment.
The colliery screening committee in 2001 have recommended employment of Birendra Kumar Nonia. Having full
understanding of provisions of NCWA – V where in Clause 9.5.0 (iii) it is provided that :
“In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no
employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be
kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he
attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependent is on live roster, the female dependent will be paid
monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.”
From the relevant provision I find that the female dependent has option to accept either monetary compensation or
employment. In this case Smt. Ahilya Devi did not opt for accepting monetary compensation and the same is evident
from the report of the screening committee. Such decision of payment of monetary compensation was thrust upon her
and cannot be used against her that such acceptance of monetary compensation has disqualified her from claiming
employment.
12.
According to the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA – V, the dependent son of the deceased workman
should be than fifteen years and above in age so that his name is maintained in the live roster. The recorded age in the
SRE reveals that he was less than fifteen years at the time of death of his father. The management having waived such
requirement had considered the proposal for employment of the dependent son on his attaining majority and also
recommended for his employment. In a case where the widow of the deceased who was within the eligible age limit
was denied employment, Birendra Kumar Nonia, dependent son cannot be denied employment on the ground that he
was underage i.e. below the age of fifteen years or that his name could not have been maintained in the live roster. It is
just and appropriate to consider the case of Birendra Kumar Nonia for employment by way of assessing his age
according to the II No. 76. In her application dated 27.07.2001 (Exhibit M-2) Smt. Ahilya Devi prayed for
employment of her son on his attaining majority. The issue remained unresolved and the Colliery Screening
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3427
Committee recommended for employment of Birendra Kumar Nonia (Exhibit W-2) on 30.08.2001. Therefore, the
delay caused is attributable to the management of ECL and the dependent of employee should not suffer for the
conduct.
13.
In view of my aforesaid discussion the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL in denying
employment to Birendra Kumar Nonia is not found justified. The management of company is directed to consider the
prayer for employment of Birendra Kumar Nonia, dependent son of the ex-employee and assess his age according to
the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 within two (2) months from the date of Notification of the
Award. The Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the dependent of the ex-employee.
Hence,
ORDERED
that an Award be drawn up in favour of Birendra Kumar Nonia, dependent of the ex-employee workman.
The Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL is directed to consider the prayer for employment of the dependent
son of the ex-employee and assess his age according to the provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 76 within
two (2) months from the date of Notification of the Award. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1549.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
पंजाब नेशनल बᱹक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानपुर ds iapkV (81/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2023-आईआर(बी-I)-21]
सलोनी, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 81/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kanpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2023- IR(B-I)-21]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before Shri Soma Shekhar Jena, Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Kanpur
ID NO. 81 of 2002
In the matter of Industrial Dispute
Between
The General Secretary,
U.P, Bank karmchari Sangh,
45, A, Chandra Nagar, Lal Bangla,
Kanpur (U.P)-208007
Versus
The Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank
Zonal Office, 94, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Lucknow (U.P)-0
3428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Award
This award arises out of a reference issued by Government of India in exercise of the power conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) as
mentioned in notification no. L-12011/168/2002-IR(B-II) dated 10.12.2002. The reference is read as follows:-
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Shri Om Prakash
Pandey from services w.e.f 15.1.2001 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is he entitled for?”
On behalf of the claimant workman the averments submitted before this Tribunal may be summarized as
follows:-
Claimant workman was working as a group ‘D’ employee in the employer bank P.N.B H.A.L. branch.
Claimant workman was suspended by the employer bank by letter dated 17.01.2000 which is Annexure-I. Later the
employer bank, on the basis of aforementioned letter, lodged a case against the claimant on 18.01.2000 in Lucknow
situated Gazipur, police station under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The case number was 20/2000.
On the request of the claimant the enquiry of the case was delegated to special Anusandhan Branch, Kesar bagh,
Lucknow. As a result of the enquiry the claimant workman was exonerated and 3 other employees of the branch were
found guilty under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the case of 20/2000 though earlier the employer
bank put all the blame only on the claimant workman.
In exasperation to the exoneration of delinquent workman, the claimant workman was charge sheeted with
false allegations. Neither the charge sheet dated 15.09.99 for his alleged acts of gross misconduct committed by him
was ever served upon him nor he was ever given opportunity to participate in any kind of disciplinary or departmental
enquiry. Even the employer bank failed to produce any kind of evidence or witness support of the allegation served
upon the claimant workman. The departmental/disciplinary enquiry of the employer bank was completely one sided
and full of hostility and as a result of the biased enquiry worker was dismissed from his service without notice
(dismissal without notice).
Workman further stated that all the allegations were false in nature and the allegations fell beyond the
provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. The Charge sheet served upon him was illegal and against the provisions of the
Bipartite Settlement. Claimant workman prayed before the Hon’ble Tribunal for quashing the order and reinstating
him in service with back wages considering that the claimant workman was an employee of group ‘D’ category and
belonging to economically weaker section of the society.
On behalf of employer bank (P.N.B) the averments made in its written statement can be concisely stated as follows:-
Sri Pandey (delinquent workman) while working as Peon at BO HAL Lucknow was served with a charge
sheet dated 15.09.99 a copy of which is enclosed and marked as Annexure ME-1/1-ME-1/2. The claimant workman
submitted his reply dated 21.01.99 to the said charge sheet which was not found to be satisfactory to the disciplinary
authority. Accordingly vide order dated 26.10.99 departmental enquiry was initiated to look into the truthfulness of
the allegations made vide charge sheet dated 15.9.99. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry in accordance with the
principle of natural justice during which all reasonable opportunities were afforded to delinquent workman to present
his case and to defend himself during enquiry by a representative of his choice. However, it is submitted that claimant
workman with ulterior objective did not participate in the enquiry with the result, that the said enquiry was concluded
ex-parte. The Enquiry officer submitted his report dated 13.04.2000 to the Disciplinary Authority with conclusions as
charges proved. The Findings of the Enquiry Officer was sent to claimant workman vide letter dated 12.08.2000 to
give his representation thereon. Claimant workman, however, did not submit any representation on the report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer where after the Disciplinary Authority vide show cause notice dated 21.10.2000
proposed punishment of ‘dismissal without notice’ upon the claimant workman. He was also advised to appear for
personal hearing on 18.11.2000. Further, since the claimant workman did not appear for personal hearing on
18.11.2000 without assigning any reason, the Disciplinary Authority adjourned the personal hearing to 25.11.2000
where after on the request of the workman, the personal hearing was adjourned to 13.1.2001. Claimant workman
however, again did not appear for the personal hearing on 13.1.2001 and made yet another request for an adjournment.
The same was not accepted and thereafter the disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire material on the
record inflicted punishment of ‘dismissal without notice’ upon the claimant workman vide order dated 15.1.2001.
It is submitted that under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, workman employee has got a right to
prefer an appeal within 45 days against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is stated that claimant
workman did not prefer any appeal under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement to the Appellate Authority and in
view of this, it is submitted that the so called present reference made by the appropriate Government to this Hon’ble
Tribunal is premature. Claimant workman was placed under suspension in the meanwhile, vide order dated 17.1.2000
for his alleged involvement in the fraud of Rs 18,000/- in one SF A/c No. 4049 at BO: HAL, Lucknow in respect of
which an FIR was filed by the bank with Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow. It is averred that the claimant workman
was given the charge sheet dated 15.9.99 for his alleged acts of gross misconduct committed by him within the
meaning of para 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement. It is further denied that the punishment of “dismissal without notice”
has been inflicted upon the claimant workman by the Disciplinary Authority by way of any connivance with one Shri
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3429
Uma Shankar Srivastava who was the defence representative of claimant workman in the departmental enquiry. As
regards the departmental enquiry, it is reiterated that full opportunity was made available to claimant workman to
defend himself. However for the reasons best known to himself, he did not avail the said opportunity.
The points to be answered in this proceeding are as follows:-
1.
Whether the action of management of P.N.B in dismissing O.P Pandey (claimant) from services w.e.f
15.01.2001 is legal and justified.
2.
Whether the reference as received in this tribunal without any effort by the claimant by preferring appeal is
maintainable?
3.
To what relief the claimant is entitled?
Point No.1
It is clear that the claimant at one stage before the charge sheet was employed as peon in the employer P.N.B in its
branch. The charge sheet dated 15.091999 copy of which has been produced before this Tribunal contains 3 heads.
The first component of the charge speaks that the claimant in December 1997 had received Rs 80,000/- from one
Kamod Pathak giving assurance to him to arrange a plot of area 1250 sq.feet at Gomti Nagar then owned by Smt.
Rekha. The component of the charge is based on the allegation that the claimant going beyond the sphere of work
assigned to him was indulging in real estate business. Though it was alleged that the claimant was indulging in real
estate business there is no adequate material before this Tribunal for concluding that the claimant was very often
indulging in real estate transactions. There is no whisper that the claimant was thoroughly negligent in his duty in the
bank. It is submitted on behalf of claimant that Kamod Kumar Pathak had only prayed for refund of amount of Rs
80,000/-
Though indulging in business outside the scope of duty without written permission of the bank can be read as
gross misconduct an isolated instance of indulging in one real estate transaction cannot be reasonably read as gross
misconduct. The second component of the charge dated 15.09.99 speaks that the claimant was forwarded by the police
under accusation of offenses punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that
on 29.05.99 he had surrendered and was allowed bail on 31.05.99. It may be correct that the claimant had spent more
than 24 hours in judicial custody. His actual role in the said alleged offenses punishable under sections 147, 148, 323,
504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is not clear. The Third limb of charge speaks that on 07.07.98 the claimant had
availed one consumer loan hiding one previous loan availed by him and the said previous loan liability came to light
on 16.8.99 by O.D.D. It may be true that the claimant had availed the consumer loan of RS 25,000/- concealing the
earlier liability. It was stated on behalf of claimant that the so called availing of the loan concealing the earlier liability
may not be read as any act causing serious loss to the bank or an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. In the
bipartite settlement code of conduct to be followed by bank employees has been mentioned. The bank authority in
their wisdom has formulated the code of conduct to be strictly followed by the bank employees without deviation. It
may be correct that the dilution of code of conduct with extraneous interpretation is likely to cause devastating
indiscipline leading to collapse of the banking industry but in the other hand it is also seen that even an employee
found guilty of misconduct could be warned or censured or fined or could be awarded stoppage of increment or
discharged or awarded dismissal without notice. It appears that the three components of the charge dated 15.9.99
cannot be strictly covered under clause 19.5.(a) and 19.5.(j) of Bipartite settlement governing the service of the bank
employees.
At this point it is pertinent to state here the claimant submitted that he was not provided with the copies of the
documents which formed the basis of charges. It may be correct that the copies of documents have to be provided to
the delinquent for putting forth reasonable defence against the allegations made against him. From the nature of
allegations brought against the claimant it is evident that the claimant had not suffered grave prejudice with non
supply of copies of the documents and the list of the witnesses. Departmental enquiries are conducted on the principle
of preponderance of probabilities. On the other hand it is seen that the claimant had participated in the departmental
proceedings initiated by O.P management as revealed from the undisputed copies of papers. It is apparent that no
substantial prejudice occasioned in the departmental enquiry conducted against the claimant. Law is well settled that
this Industrial Tribunal may interfere with the order of dismissal of claimant workman when the same is shockingly
disproportionate. It is also clear that the claimant had not preferred appeal before the designated appellate authority of
employer bank which could have given opportunity to revisit the correctness of the findings and reasonableness and
proportionality of the punishment awarded to the claimant. Since no appeal was preferred the reference proceeding is
otherwise questionable exercise. A long period has elapsed after the order of dismissal without notice. The whole
blame of the situation leading the claimant to go without work cannot be cast on the P.N.B management as the
claimant had not preferred appeal before the designated appellate authority. In the scenario his dismissal without
notice though not fully justifiable, reinstatement with full back wages also appears to be highly improper. It is also
well settled in law whenever dismissal is found to be shockingly disproportionate reinstatement with full back wages
cannot be automatically granted.
3430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the case of J.K Synthetics Ltd. vs K.P.Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433 it is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
“ But the manner in which “back wages” is viewed, had undergone a significant change in the last two decades. They
are no longer considered to be an automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement. We may refer to the latest of a
series of decisions on this question. In U.P State Brassware Coprn. Ltd. V Uday narain Pandy [(2006) 1 SCC 479:
2006 (L&S)250], this Court following Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai [(2005)5 SCC 124: 2005 SCC
363 : 2005 (L&S) 270] held as follows: (Uday Narain Pandey case [(2006) 1 SCC 479: 2006 SCC (L&S) 250], SCC p
480-g)
“ A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the
functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance.
Although direction to pay full back wages on a declaration that the order of termination was invalid used to be the
usual result, but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the matter is being taken by the court realising
that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed
little or nothing at all to it and/or for a period that was sent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be
compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman was retrenched. The
changes brought about by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, probably having regard to the changes in
the policy decisions of the Government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and
outsourcing, is evident.”
The documents produced by the O.P. bank during domestic enquiry stated to have been issued by the Superintendent
District Jail Lucknow and the paper cutting and the letter of communication issued by Learned Advocated Shyam
Sunder Dayal Verma clearly proved with preponderance of probabilities that claimant Om Prakash Pandey had
suffered detention in judicial custody under accusation of offences punishable under section 147, 148, 323, 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code. Claimant Om Prakash Pandey had surrendered on 29.05.1999 and was granted on bail.
It appears that after release from judicial custody on bail the claimant had not informed his higher authorities about his
detention in judicial custody. Detention in judicial custody per se is no gross violation of the terms of the bipartite
settlement though the same operates as a stigma on the personality of Om Prakash Pandey. The documents produced
in course of domestic enquiry clearly prove that on 07.07.1998 the claimant had availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand from the Punjab National Bank Hazratganj Branch by submitting application. It is also seen from the
documents produced in domestic enquiry that the claimant had further applied for Consumer Loan for Rupees Seventy
Thousand from Punjab National Bank, HAL, Lucknow Branch on 23.11.1998 concealing the earlier loan of Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand dated 07.07.1998 availed from Punjab National Bank Hazratganj Branch and it appears that
loan of Rupees Thirty One Thousand was allowed by the Punjab National Bank HAL Branch, Lucknow in favour of
claimant Om Prakash Pandey. It is clear from the documentary evidence produced before this Tribunal that delinquent
workman Om Prakash Pandey had availed the loan of Rupees Thirty One Thousand from the Punjab National Bank
HAL, branch on 23.11.1998 suppressing the earlier loan of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand availed by him from the
Punjab National Bank Hazratganj Branch. The above stated documentary evidence has not been shattered during
domestic enquiry and the enquiry officer found the delinquent guilty under provisions 19.5 (a) and 19.5 (j) of the
bipartite settlement. 19.5 (a) of the bipartite settlement is read containing the following words:
(a) Engaging in any trade or business outside the scope of his duties except with the written permission of the
bank.
Since there is evidence of involvement of the claimant in real estate transaction for one occasion it appears improper
to hold the delinquent with the misconduct of engaging in any trade or business. Be that as it may his act of availing
loan of Rupees Thirty One Thousand from the Punjab National Bank, Hazratganj Branch, Lucknow suppressing the
earlier loan of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand availed from the Punjab National Bank Harjratganj Branch. Availing
the loans by one employee contrary to the guidelines issued by the O.P. management falls within the ambit of Para
19.5 (j) of the bipartite settlement and the delinquent employee has been rightly held guilty under that provision of the
bipartite settlement.
It may be correct that the delinquent employee has sworn affidavit that after dismissal by the O.P. bank he
went without gainful engagement and earning. Law is well settled that burden of proving that the delinquent employee
spent the period after dismissal without gainful engagement lies on the delinquent such burden cannot be reasonably
held to have been discharged by one self-serving affidavit filed by the delinquent. In other words, the delinquent
employee has failed to discharge the burden on him that after order of dismissal he went without gainful employment
In all kinds of exercise of awarding back wages some amount of guesswork blended with reasonableness and
propriety is desirable. Merely because the claimant was awarded dismissal without notice, it cannot definitely be
concluded that he was going without engagement. In view of the nature of allegations on record during the course of
departmental enquiry the claimant is held to be entitled to get 40% of back wages excluding House Rent Allowance
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3431
from point of dismissal 15.01.2001 till the end of his job from the employer bank. He shall be deemed to be
continuing in service till his date of superannuation for pensionary benefits.
Since the claimant workman was dismissed by the employer bank (P.N.B) in the facts and circumstances of
the case as discussed above his application is partly maintainable.
The reference is answered accordingly. In the factual scenario the parties are left to bear their respective costs.
Let a soft copy of this award be sent to Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for publication
Hard copy thereof will follow in due course of time.
SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1550.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj 3 एवं 4 इनलाइन, झांजरा पᳯरयोजना का ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds
iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/193/2011-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 03/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of 3&4
Incline,Jhanjra Project of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/193/2011- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 03 OF 2012
PARTIES: Dalbir Singh
Vs.
Management of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
14.08.2023
3432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/193/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 15.02.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of 3 and 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of 3 & 4 Incline Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
denying rectification of date of birth of Sri Dalbir Singh, Mining Sirdar as 06.09.1956 is legal and justified?
To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/193/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 15.02.2012 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 03 of 2012 was registered on
05.03.2012 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
The workman filed his written statement through the General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress,
Asansol on 19.06.2013. According to the averments in the written statement Dalbir Singh, the aggrieved workman is a
permanent employee of the company posted as Mining Sirdar at Jhanjra Project of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL). It is contended that in the Service Record the year of birth is recorded as 1954 instead
of his date of birth, which is 06.09.1956. It is claimed that according to his School Certificate and Mining Sirdarship
Certificate issued by the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) the date of birth of Dalbir Singh is 06.09.1956.
In the year 1987, on receiving a copy of Service Excerpt the workman raised age dispute related to the recorded year
of birth. It is asserted on behalf of the workman that according to Implementation Instruction No. 76 (hereinafter
referred to as II No. 76) the date of birth of a workman who passed Matriculation examination before joining his
service in ECL should be recorded as per the date of birth appearing in the Matriculation Certificate, but the
management recorded a wrong date of birth in this case. Even in Mining Sirdarship examination, which the workman
passed while in service of the company, the Manager of the Colliery endorsed his date of birth as 06.09.1956. The
workman has claimed that his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate should be taken as final and
necessary correction should be made in all the records of the company.
3.
The management of ECL contested the case by filing written statement on 22.10.2014. According to the
version of the management of ECL, at the time of appointment of Dalbir Singh at Mithapur Colliery under Satgram
Area of ECL his date / year of birth was recorded as 1954 in the Statutory Form ‘B’ Register of Mithapur Colliery. In
the year 1987 the Service Record Excerpt (hereinafter referred to as SRE) of the workman was issued, where his year
of birth was recorded as 1954 as per entry of the Form ‘B’ register. All along the workman was aware about the date
of birth recorded in the Form ‘B’ Register and he had accepted the same by authenticating it. In the letter of
appointment and attestation form the year of birth was duly recorded as 1954. In the Form ‘B’ Register of Jhanjra
Project of ECL, where the workman was subsequently transferred, his year of birth was recorded as 1954 on the basis
of the Last Pay Certificate (LPC) issued from Mithapur Colliery. The management of ECL contended that there is no
occasion for rectification of date of birth of the workman.
4.
In support of his case Dalbir Singh filed an affidavit-in-chief, wherein he stated that on receiving SRE in the
year 1987 he raised dispute regarding his year of birth and claimed that his date of birth is 06.09.1956 on the basis of
his School certificate and Mining Sirdarship Certificate. The witness further stated that according to the II No. 76 his
age should be corrected as per School Certificate and Mining Sirdarship Certificate but the management did not
consider his request. The witness claimed that he passed his Matriculation examination before his appointment under
the company and his date of birth was recorded in his educational certificate as 06.09.1956. The management of the
colliery certify his date of birth as 06.09.1956 at the time of his appearance in the Mining Sirdarship examination. The
workman wanted to continue his service by way of rectification of his date of birth in his service record. In his cross-
examination Dalbir Singh deposed that he filed his School Certificate and Mining Sirdarship Certificate. However, no
such document has been admitted in the evidence at the instance of workman or his Union. Workman witness
admitted that he was appointed in the service on 11.07.1974 and at the time of his appointment his year of birth was
recorded as 1954. The witness admitted that he has put his signature on the Form ‘B’ Register where his year of birth
is recorded as 1954 but at that time, he did not go through the entries made in the Service Record. The witness further
deposed that his educational qualification is recorded in the Service Record as Matriculate and he was still working as
a General Mazdoor. A suggestion was put to the witness that he did not deposit his Matriculation Certificate at the
time of his appointment, which he has denied. On perusal of the Form ‘B’ of Dalbir Singh produced by the
management as Exhibit M-1, I find that Point No. 5 relating to certificate regarding educational qualification and
vocational training in the Mines have been left vacant. It is obvious that in the year 1974 the aggrieved workman did
not produce any certificate regarding its educational qualification containing his date of birth. In course of his cross-
examination the witness stated that he has been superannuated from service on the basis of date of birth recorded in
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3433
the Service Record. In the copy of SRE dated 24.04.1987 of Mithapur Colliery of ECL, Point No. 7 relating to the
educational qualification is found blank. Therefore, there is no cogent reason to accept that the workman had
submitted his Matriculation Certificate before the company at the time of his appointment. Page No. 2 of SRE
contains acknowledgment receipt of the letter. The workman in the remarks column of the acknowledgment receipt
record his objection regarding his date of birth and claimed the same to be 06.09.1956. The workman however did not
produce any Matriculation Certificate containing his date of birth.
5.
The management examined Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem as Management witness – 1. In the affidavit-in-chief
he stated that in the SRE, issued by Mithapur Colliery the date of birth of Dalbir Singh was recorded as 1954. Witness
further stated that though the workman raised a dispute in the SRE for correction of his date of birth as 06.09.1956 on
the basis of High School Certificate, the same could be considered as it was not issued by any recognized board of
examination. The management witness deposed that the year of birth of the workman is 1954 and he has been
superannuated from his service. The School leaving transfer certificate produced by him was issued only on
08.09.1990 (Exhibit M-3). The workman submitted his representation and on 21.10.2010 that he passed his
Matriculation examination before joining ECL but no Matriculation Certificate was produced by him. The copy of his
application dated 07.10.2010 for rectification of date of birth has been marked as Exhibit M-4. The cross-examination
of management witness reveals that the School leaving certificate purportedly bearing his date of birth as 06.09.1956
was never produced.
6.
I have considered the gamut of evidence adduced and the rival contentions of the parties. It is conspicuous
from the relevant document that since joining his service in the year 1974, the year of birth of Dalbir Singh was
recorded as 1954 and there is no interpolation of his date of birth recorded in the Form ‘B’ Register. After more than
ten years the workman raise objection regarding date of birth on the pretext that he passed the Matriculation
examination before appointment and his date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate as 06.09.1956. The
dispute was raised on the basis of such claim as the workman wanted his date of birth to be recorded in terms of II No.
76.
7.
On traversing the contents of Implementation Instruction No. 76, relating to procedure for determination /
verification of age of the employees at the time of appointment, it is laid down in Clause A (i) that :
“ Matriculates.
In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in the
said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.”
In the present case at the time of his appointment in the year 1954, no Matriculation Certificate was placed before the
employer and there was no scope for recording such unconfirmed date of birth in the Form ‘B’ Register. Even after
raising the dispute the workman failed to produce any Matriculation Certificate before the employer hoping to derive
benefit through II No. 76. During adjudication of the Industrial Dispute, the workman was unable to produce any
Matriculation Certificate. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be presumed that the date of birth of Dalbir
Singh is 06.09.1956. The date of birth appearing in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate is not a document to be relied
upon for the purpose of deciding his date of birth unless the primary document of Matriculation Certificate is
produced.
8.
Having considered the facts and circumstances and the materials available on record I hold that the
management of 3 and 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project under Jhanjra Area of ECL committed no error in denying rectification
of date of birth of Dalbir Singh as 06.09.1956. The claim of the workman is out and out unfounded and he is not
entitled to any rectification of his date of birth. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly decided against the workman on
contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute raised by Koyala Mazdoor Congress claiming rectification of date of birth of
Dalbir Singh as 06.09.1956 is dismissed on contest. Let an Award be drawn up in the light of my above findings. Let
copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi
for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1551.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj शु सीयरसोल कोिलयरी का ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
3434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV
(संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/149/2013-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 25/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Pure
Searsole Colliery of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/149/2013- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 25 OF 2013
PARTIES: Sonaram Majhi
Vs.
Management of Pure Searsole Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
08.08.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/149/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 12.11.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Pure Searsole Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of Puresearsol Colliery not to re-instate Sri Sonaram Majhi in
service is proper and justified, while he was dismissed from service only on ground of absenteeism, due to
ill health and sickness. If not, so what relief Management can provide to him? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/149/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 12.11.2013 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 25 of 2013 was registered on
14.02.2014 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative filed written statement on behalf of the workman on 16.06.2015.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) appeared and filed
written statement on 01.08.2016. The Industrial Dispute which has been referred for adjudication is whether not
reinstating Sonaram Majhi in his service is proper and justified when he was dismissed on the ground of absenting due
to ill health. Management in their written statement stated that the workman absented from duty from 31.10.1996 and
he was chargesheeted on 07/08.01.1997 for violation of Clause 17(1)(n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the
Mines.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3435
3.
Delinquent workman failed to submit satisfactory reply to the Charge Sheet and a Domestic Enquiry was
held by the Enquiry Officer, duly appointed by the appointing authority. Notice was sent to the workman at his home
address as per service record but he did not attend the Enquiry Proceeding. The charge of misconduct was fully
established against him and a Second Show Cause Notice was issued to him. The Disciplinary authority after
considering Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, and connected papers, passed an order of dismissal of
Sonaram Majhi from service. It is claimed that punishment awarded is justified and proportionate. It has been denied
that the ex-workman failed to attend duty due to his illness.
4.
The case was fixed up for evidence of management witness and filing authorization by the learned advocate
for ECL but no letter of authorization has been filed. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL filed a Vokalatnama
executed by the Agent, J. K. Nagar (R) Colliery of ECL, though the written statement was filed by the Agent,
Jemehari / Pure Searsole Colliery under Satgram Area of ECL. It appears to me that learned advocate has misfiled his
Vokalatnama in this case and same is not acceptable.
5.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar informed this Tribunal on 23.12.2022 that Sonaram Majhi has expired and his legal heirs
should be substituted in his place for receiving monetary compensation, if any. Opportunity was granted to the
concerned union to take necessary steps for substitution of legal heirs and to produce Death Certificate as well as legal
heirship certificate in respect of Sonaram Majhi. After four consecutive dates, Mr. Kumar submitted that legal heirs of
the deceased employee are not inclined to proceed with this case and he is unable to file death certificate. An
application has been filed by the union representative praying for deciding the fate of this dispute on the ground that
workman has died and the dependent of the deceased employee has not turned up after necessary instruction. On call
at 12:30 PM, Mr. Kumar moved the application after service of a copy upon Mr. P. K. Das, advocate for the
management. Since, the legal heirs of the deceased ex-employee are not interested in pursuing the case, same is
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed for non-prosecution. An Award be drawn up accordingly. Let copies
of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1552.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj पैरा᭭कोल कोिलयरी ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/4/2020-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 11/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Parascole Colliery E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/4/2020- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
3436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 11 OF 2020
PARTIES: Koyala Mazdoor Congress on behalf of
Nawal Kishor Singh.
Vs.
Management of Parascole Colliery of ECL.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
26.07.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/4/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Parascole Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the claim of Koyala Mazdoor Congress (HMS), Asansol, for providing employment on
compassionate grounds by the management of M/s. E.C.Ltd. to Nawal Kishore Singh, dependent son of Late
Surendra Mohan who expired on 27.2.2015, is appropriate and justified? If yes, to what relief Shri Nawal
Kishore Singh, the dependent son of Late Surendra Mohan Singh is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/4/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11 of 2020 was registered on
24.02.2020 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress appeared and filed written statement in this case on
07.09.2022. The brief fact of the case as disclosed by the workmen’s union is that Surendra Mohan Singh, Ex-
Line Mazdoor was a permanent employee of Parascole Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL) who died on 21.02.2015. According to the provisions in Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal
Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) – VI one dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to get
employment. Accordingly, Nawal Kishor Singh applied for providing employment to him along with necessary
documents. After screening held at the Colliery level, proposal for employment was sent to the Area Office. The Area
Office conducted screening in which all the family members were called to appear and Nawal Kishor Singh the son of
the deceased was asked to appear before the Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME) Board at the
Area Hospital for his medical examination and assessment of his age. The IME Board declared him fit for
employment and assessed his age as thirty-four years on the date of medical examination. According to the
Implementation Instruction No. 76 (hereinafter referred to as II No. 76) the age decided by the IME Board is
considered final. If a person is aggrieved by the findings of the IME Board, then he can make appeal for re-assessment
of his age by the Apex Medical Board but if no objection is raised the age decided by the IME Board is considered as
final.
3.
Nawal Kishor Singh was found below thirty-five years of age on the date of death of his father. The Area
Screening Committee and the General Manager of the Area recommended the employment proposal and forwarded it
to the Head Quarters of ECL. In the Madhyamik Examination Certificate the date of birth of Nawal Kishor Singh was
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3437
recorded as 18.05.1981, in the Service Record of Surendra Mohan Singh the age of Nawal Kishor Singh was recorded
as twelve years as on 24.03.1983, in PS-3 Form his age was recorded as twenty-three (23) years as on 26.05.1998, in
the Aadhaar Card his age was recorded as twenty-three as on 26.05.1998, and in the Election Photo Identification
Card (EPIC) his date of birth was recorded as 20.12.1981. After a long proceeding the management of ECL vide
Letter No. PSC / P&IR / C-6 / 17 / 731 dated 30.06.2017 communicated to Nawal Kishor Singh that his age
recorded in the Service Record Excerpt (SRE) of the employee was more than thirty-five (35) years as such he is not
entitled to get employment and another dependent of the deceased employee can be considered for employment. The
contention of the union is that most of the workmen in the Coalfield are illiterate and unable to disclose the actual date
of birth of their family members. They do not have Birth Certificate of their dependents and the recordings in the
Service Record of ECL are usually done by the dealing clerks which are incorrect. It is urged that the management has
no option to regret the claim for employment of Nawal Kishor Singh as the decision of the IME Board as per
guidelines of the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry (hereinafter referred to as JBCCI) is final and the
management cannot go against its own circular. It is further asserted that Nawal Kishor Singh, the dependent son has
no source of income to maintain his livelihood. He is in urgent need of employment so that he can save his family
from starvation. It is prayed that the Nawal Kishor Singh, the dependent son of Surendra Mohan Singh should be
provided with employment under the provisions of NCWA on the basis of II No. 76 with all consequential benefits.
Furthermore, wife/dependent son should be paid monetary compensation from the date of death of employee to the
date of providing employment to the dependent son.
4.
The management of Parascole Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL submitted their written statement on
07.09.2022 refuting the claim of workmen’s union. It is the case of the employer company that as per the provisions of
NCWA one dependent family member is entitled to have employment on the death of employee while in service.
Nawal Kishor Singh, dependent son of the deceased employee applied for his employment on the death of his father.
According to the contents of Service Book of the employee, the age of Nawal Kishor Singh was twelve years as on
01.04.1987 and in the PS-3 Form his age was recorded as twenty-three years as on 26.05.1998. The application
for employment was submitted on 09.07.2015 i.e. after five months from death of his father. At the relevant time the
age of Nawal Kishor Singh was more than forty years. It is contended on behalf of the management that under NCWA
the maximum age of the dependent for being considered for employment is thirty-five years. It was communicated to
Smt. Prema Devi, wife of Surendra Mohan Singh vide letter no. PSC/P&IR/C-6/15/742 dated 24.07.2015 that the
proposal for providing employment to her elder son could not be entertained as he was overage and she was advised to
apply for monthly monetary cash compensation. In reply to the letter Nawal Kishor Singh requested for sending him
to the IME Board. He submitted copy of his Permanent Account Number (PAN) card, Aadhaar card, Voter ID card,
Birth Certificate but all the documents were found to have been issued after the death of Surendra Mohan Singh on
21.02.2015. Finally, it was communicated by ECL Head Quarters that as per recorded age and the entries in SRE and
PS-3 Form, the age of the applicant was more than forty years. The EPIC, Aadhaar card and PAN card were prepared
after the death of his father to reduce his age and the Birth Registration Certificate was also arranged after the death of
his father for such reasons his prayer for employment was regretted. It is the case of the management that the action of
the management is lawful and proper and the dispute raised by the union is misconceived.
5.
Nawal Kishor Singh in support of his case field an affidavit-in-chief reiterating the statements made in the
written statement filed by the Union. It is further stated that according to the guidelines of JBCCI the age of the
dependent is decided by the IME Board but if the dependent of the deceased employee is a matriculate, then his age
recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is final and if he is a non-matric then his age is decided by the IME Board.
He further averred that the IME Board declared him fit for duty and assessed his age as thirty-four years on the date of
medical examination. Therefore, he is below thirty-five years on the date of death of his father. The management of
ECL informed him to appear before the Apex Medical Board for review of his age decided by the IME Board, but he
raised objection and submitted an application on 17.07.2017 addressed to the Head Quarters of ECL through Colliery
stating that since he has no objection against the finding of the IME Board there is no scope for review of his age by
the Apex Medical Board.
6.
In his evidence on affidavit-in-chief, it is further stated that the management without accepting the age of
Nawal Kishor Singh record in the Service Record of the ex-employee had sent him for assessment of age by the IME
Board. Therefore, the decision of the IME Board should be taken as final.
7.
In course of evidence the workman witness produced photocopy of the Identity Card of his father which is
marked as Exhibit W-1, photocopy of Service Record Excerpt in four pages as Exhibit W-2, photocopy of Death
Registration Certificate of his father as Exhibit W-4, photocopy of application in prescribed form as Exhibit W-5,
photocopy of No Objection Certificate submitted by the other dependent family members as Exhibit W-6, photocopy
of the letter dated 16.07.2016 making some queries regarding the dependent son is marked as Exhibit W-7, photocopy
of letter issued by the Colliery Authority on 11.11.2016 is Exhibit W-8, photocopy of letter dated 30.06.2017
regretting the proposal for employment as Exhibit W-9, photocopy of letter dated 17.07.2017 regarding subsequent
appeal made before the management of the company for reconsidering the proposal for employment as Exhibit W-10,
photocopy of the letter dated 12.05.2019 issued by the union representative for reconsidering the prayer for
employment as Exhibit W-11, photocopy of the Certificate issued by the Bihar Board of Open Schooling &
3438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Examination, Patna, containing the date of birth of the petitioner as Exhibit W-12, and photocopy of Birth Certificate
of Nawal Kishor Singh as Exhibit W-13.
8.
Management of Parascole Colliery of ECL led evidence through Mr. Ashlam Shair, who is examined as
Management witness – 1. It has been deposed by the witness that from the official record it appears that the age of the
claimant was more than thirty-five years at the time of death of his father. In his cross-examination the witness
deposed that the employment proposal of the dependent son of Surendra Mohan Singh was regretted by the competent
authority on the ground that there was discrepancy of age mentioned in the documents produced and the IME report of
the candidate.
9.
In support of their case management produced several documents which have been arrayed as Exhibit M-1 to
M-6. A photocopy of Service Book of Surendra Mohan Singh is produced as Exhibit M-1, photocopy of the PS-3
Form containing family particulars as Exhibit M-2, photocopy of the report of pre-employment medical examination
as Exhibit M-3, photocopy of the letter dated 27/30.06.2017 regretting the proposal for employment as Exhibit M-4,
photocopy of the letter dated 14.08.2020 asking the candidate for re-assessment of his age and for submission of
affidavit, undertaking to accept the age assessed as Exhibit M-5, photocopy of the letter dated 13.06.2017 addressed to
the Manager (Personnel), Kajora Area informing that the date of birth of Nawal Kishor Singh appearing in the
documents are different and another son of the deceased employee may apply for employment is produced as Exhibit
M-6.
10.
The point for consideration is whether Nawal Kishor Singh, the dependent son of the deceased employee,
Surendra Mohan Singh is entitled to get employment under ECL on compassionate ground.
11.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative appearing for Nawal Kishor Singh argued that the father of the
claimant was a permanent employee at Parascole Colliery of ECL, who died in harness on 21.02.2015. Nawal
Kishor Singh who submitted his application for employment dated 01.06.2015 was less than thirty-five years at the
time of death of his father as was determined by the IME Board. It is argued on behalf of the son of the ex-employee
that he is entitled to employment according to the Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA-VI and as per the provisions of II No. 76 of
NCWA-III the date of birth of an illiterate person has to be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer in view with
any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. The date of birth shall not be altered
under any circumstances. It is argued that in the present case the age of Nawal Kishor Singh was assessed by the IME
Board as thirty-two to thirty-seven (32 -37) years, as such his age was below thirty-five years at the time of death of
his father. Mr. Rakesh Kumar submitted that since Nawal Kishor Singh passed his Madhyamik examination from
Bihar Board of Open Schooling & Examination, Patna in 2017, his date of birth was recorded as18.05.1981, but as he
did not submit the Certificate, the date of birth recorded in the certificate may not be considered and the decision of
the IME Board should be treated as final for granting employment.
12.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of ECL strongly opposed the claim for employment. It
is argued that Nawal Kishor Singh was more than forty years at the time of his father’s death and he had produced
several documents wherein different date of birth was recorded. It is argued that in the SRE (Ext. M-1) the age of
Nawal Kishor Singh was recorded as twelve years as on 01.04.1987 therefore his date of birth would be 01.04.1975
i.e. forty years at the time of death of his father on 21.02.2015. In Form PS-3 (Ext. M-2) age of the claimant was
recorded as twenty-three years as on 26.05.1998 therefore his year of birth would be 1975 and no objection was raised
by the employee. In the Aadhaar card and PAN card the date of birth has been recorded as 20.12.1981 and in the
Voter ID card the year of birth was recorded as 1981. In his Madhyamik Certificate his date of birth was
recorded as 18.05.1981, which is again inconsistent with the date of birth appearing in the Birth registration
certificate, PAN card and Aadhaar card appearing as 20.12.1981. All these documents have been obtained subsequent
to the death of his father only for the purpose of employment and there is no document contemporaneous to the death
of his father disclosing his date of birth, therefore the subsequent documents cannot be relied upon.
13.
Learned advocate further argued that in II No. 76 the date of birth of an illiterate person could be considered
by way of holding medical examination and by taking into account of other available documents. In the case of Nawal
Kishor Singh there is conspicuous discrepancy regarding his age recorded in the Service Record of his father, his PAN
card, Birth Certificate, and date of birth recorded in his Madhyamik Certificate. It is argued that when such
discrepancies could not be reconciled with the age assessed by way of pre-employment medical examination, the
management of the company had to regret his prayer for employment on the ground that he was more than forty years
of age on the basis of SRE and PS-3 Form of his father and other documents which he had produced for the purpose of
reducing his age, obtained by him after the death of his father.
14.
I have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the dependent of the deceased workman and
management and the facts and circumstances of this case as well as provisions laid down in NCWA-VI and II No. 76.
Admittedly, Surendra Mohan Singh, father of Nawal Kishor Singh was a permanent employee of ECL who died on
21.02.2015 at the age of fifty-nine years and seven months. Death benefits have already been disbursed to the
dependents soon after the death of Surendra Mohan Singh and Nawal Kishor Singh submitted his application dated
01.06.2015 for employment, which has been admitted in evidence as Exhibit W-5. The other legal heirs of the
deceased employee filed “no objection” in favour of Nawal Kishor Singh which has been produced as Exhibit W-6.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3439
From the evidence of management, it is gathered that a pre-employment medical examination of Nawal Kishor Singh
was held on 18.11.2015 and the report produced as Exhibit M-3 disclosed that by appearance the age of the person
was between thirty-two to thirty-seven years. In point no.5 of the Form the age of candidate as per Birth Certificate
issued by Bihar Government was recorded as 20.12.1981. At the relevant time the candidate did not qualify in the
Matric examination or any equivalent examination and no document was produced in support of his qualification.
Management did not venture to confirm the actual age of the candidate by any radiological examination which is
acceptable under the medical jurisprudence. It is found that subsequently the claimant passed Madhyamik examination
from Bihar Board of Open Schooling & Examination, Patna in the year 2017 where his date of birth was recorded as
18.05.1981. Nawal Kishor Singh was unable to explain the discrepancies and variance relating to his date of birth
appearing on the face of documents like his Birth Certificate (Ext. W-13) where his date of birth appears as
20.12.1981 and his date of birth disclosed in the Madhyamik certificate. In view of such discrepancies no reliance can
be placed upon any of the documents produced on behalf of the dependent son.
15.
Implementation Instruction No. 76, relating to determination of age at the time of appointment, in paragraph
(A) (iv) lays down that in case of illiterate persons the date of birth would be determined by the Colliery Medical
Officer keeping in view any documentary or other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. Paragraph (E) of II
No. 76 provides that :
“Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in accordance with the
requirement of “Medical Jurisprudence” and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age
assessed and not approximately.”
Nawal Kishor Singh at the time of submitting his application for employment did not produce any certificate in
support of his educational qualification. Therefore, there was no scope for considering his date of birth recorded in
Madhyamik Certificate which he obtained on 19.02.2018 (Ext. W-12). The Birth Certificate issued only on
25.04.2015 i.e. after the death of his father (Ext. W-13).
16.
At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohan Mahto vs M/s. Central Coalfields Limited and Others, 2007 (115) FLR 427 wherein it was held:
“A settlement within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on both the
parties and continues to remain in force unless the same is altered, modified or substituted by another settlement. No
period of limitation was provided in the settlement. We would assume that the respondent had jurisdiction to issue
such circular prescribing a period of limitation for filing application for grant of appointment on compassionate
ground. But, such circular was not only required to be strictly complied with but also was required to be read keeping
in view the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The expanding definition of workman as contained in
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act would confer a right upon the appellant to obtain appointment on
compassionate ground, subject, of course, to compliance of the conditions precedent contained therein.”
17.
Clause 9.4.0 (iv) of the National Coal Wage Agreement – VI provides that :
“The dependents to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not
more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in
Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.”
18.
Strict adherence to II No. 76 would be require for determination of accurate age by holding radiological
(Ossification) test acceptable under Medical Jurisprudence and not a casual approach of eye assessment of
approximate age. The candidate objected to appear for his age assessment by the Apex Medical Board. In the Service
Record of Surendra Mohan Singh, the year of birth of Nawal Kishor Singh has been consistently recorded as 1975.
No objection was raised by him. There were one daughter and another son of the ex-employee whose age have also
been recorded. If for argument’s sake it is assumed that the actual year of birth of Nawal Kishor Singh is 1981 as
appearing in his Birth Certificate and Madhyamik Certificate then it would imply that he is younger to his young
brother and young sister whose age have been recorded on 01.04.1987 as ten years and eight years respectively, which
is not acceptable. Therefore, the management of ECL committed no illegality in holding that the age of Nawal Kishor
Singh was more than thirty-five years at the time of his father’s death and in regretting his proposal for employment.
19.
In my considered view Nawal Kishor Singh’s claim for compassionate employment cannot succeed on the
basis of ambiguous documents which are self-contradictory, giving rise to discrepancies and disbelief. The Industrial
Dispute raised by the Union on behalf of the dependent son of the deceased employee does not have any merit and the
same is dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute raised on behalf of the dependent of the deceased employee is dismissed on
contest. Let an award be passed in terms of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
3440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1553.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj िगरᳲमंट ® कोिलयरी का ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/1/2021-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन., उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 01/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Girmint ® Colliery of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/1/2021- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 01 OF 2021
PARTIES: Mahesh Turi
Vs.
Management of Girmint (R) Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
25.08.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/1/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 24.03.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Girmint (R) Colliery under Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of Girmint (R) Colliery under Sripur Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. in regretting the claim for employment of Shri Mahesh Turi dependent son of Late Jogeshwar
Turi, Ex-Roof Stitcher of KDI/Girmint Colliery is just and legal? if not, to what relief the dependent son is
entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/1/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 24.03.2021 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 01 of 2021 was registered on
17.06.2021 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3441
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on behalf of the dependent
of ex-employee on 14.11.2022. The fact of their case in brief is that, Jogeswar Turi, ex-Roof Stitcher of KDI Girmint
Colliery under Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) was a permanent employee
of the company. He died on 08.07.1998, in harness. According to the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as NCWA). applicable to the employer and employee, one dependent of the deceased
employee is entitled to get employment. Mahesh Turi, the dependent son applied for his employment as a dependent
of his father. After a screening held at the colliery level Mahesh Turi was referred to appear before the Initial Medical
Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME) Board for his medical examination on 30.11.2004. The Medical Board
after holding necessary examination declared him “unfit for U/G job or employment” due to his audiometry problem.
3.
It is the contention of the Union that the Medical Board had declared Mahesh Turi unfit for underground job
only but employment could have been provided for work on surface. Being aggrieved with the decision Mahesh Turi
applied for his medical examination once again after he was medically treated for his audiometry problem, where the
doctor found him fit in all respect. It is urged that if a person is found unfit for all kind of job, then he can apply for
review of the decision by a higher Board. Mahesh Turi requested the management for his examination on the basis of
medical treatment received by him. The management did not accept his request as a result an Industrial Dispute was
raised by the union before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol. During conciliation management
agreed to send Mahesh Turi to appear before the Medical Board and in this matter a Memorandum of Settlement was
executed on 10.10.2012. According to the union the Government of India has issued guidelines where partially
handicapped person are also provided employment by the company and Mahesh Turi who was not a handicapped
person at the time of his first IME was deliberately declared unfit by doctor for underground job.
4.
Subsequently, Mahesh Turi was sent before the second IME Board on 13.04.2015, which examined him and
declared him “unfit for UG job” due to overage. It is contended that IME Board cannot decide the age of a person
twice as the age decided in the first IME is to be taken as final. The second medical examination by the Medical Board
was required only to assess whether the person is medically fit but in the instant case the board decided his age as
thirty-five to forty years on 13.04.2015 and declared him unfit due to overage and not due to any disease.
5.
It has been claimed on behalf of the Mahesh Turi that First IME Board assessed his age as twenty to twenty-
five years i.e. twenty-two years and six months as on 30.11.2004, the date of his examination, which implies that his
age would have been sixteen years and three months on the date of death of his father. The Second IME Board
decided the age of Mahesh Turi as thirty-five to forty years as on 13.04.2015, i.e. thirty-seven years and six months on
13.04.2015. Therefore, the age Mahesh Turi would have been twenty years and nine months on the date of death of
his father. It is asserted that as per this medical examination he was below thirty-five years of age at the time of death
of ex-employee and he is entitled to employment on compassionate ground. The written statement of the petitioner
referred to the Circular / Guideline of the Director (Personnel & IR), Coal India Limited dated 25.07.2003 where it is
mentioned in a clarification to the member of Consultative Committee on 23.05.2003 that :
“ the age on the date of application would be reckoned for offering employment on the compassionate
ground so that candidates are not debarred on the ground of age at the time of appointment.”
6.
The Management of ECL submitted their written statement on 20.01.2023 through the agent of Bhanora-
Girmint Group of Mines under Sripur Area of ECL. It is admitted that Jogeswar Turi was an employee of Girmint (R)
Colliery and he expired on 08.07.1998 in harness and Mahesh Turi his son applied before the management for
employment against the death of his father under the provisions of NCWA. On the basis of his application, he was
referred to IME Board for assessment of his fitness to work in the mine according to the provisions of Mines Act,
1952. The Board held the assessment on 30.11.2004 and he was found medically unfit for underground job due to
audiometry problem. It is also admitted that according to the norms of the company if IME Board declared some
person unfit for duty, then the concerned person has the right to appeal before the competent authority within one
month from the date of receipt of IME Result. In the instant case Mahesh Turi did not appeal before the competent
authority for his re-examination within the scheduled period and he raised an Industrial Dispute through Koyala
Mazdoor Congress, union bearing application no. 1(18)/2012/E-3, which is not proper. Due to ignorance of the
management a Memorandum of Settlement was signed on 10.10.2012. In the Memorandum of Settlement, the
management of Girmint Colliery under Sripur Area of ECL agreed to forward the case of Mahesh Turi to the Head
Quarter after receiving fresh application from Mahesh Turi, challenging the previous Medical Board IME Report.
Fresh application was submitted on 23.01.2013 in compliance with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement and
further IME was held at Area Level which was supposed to be held at the Head Quarter and findings of the Second
IME is that Mahesh Turi was again found “unfit for UG Job due to overage” which means Mahesh Turi was more
than thirty-five years of age on the date of IME i.e. 13.04.2015 and he is not eligible for claiming employment as per
provisions of NCWA. The matter was communicated at the Head Quarter level and it was examined by them and
found that the case was not fit for consideration on the ground that the workman died more than twenty years ago. The
purpose of incorporating provision for compassionate appointment in NCWA is to provide immediate relief to the
family of the deceased employee, who was the bread earner of that family but after passing of twenty years the
purpose of compassionate appointment is defeated. Furthermore, the compassionate employment is not an inheritable
3442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
property of the successor of the deceased employee and that the demand of the union does not came within the ambit
of Industrial Dispute defined in Section 2k of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is urged that the Industrial Dispute
is liable to be dismissed.
7.
Mahesh Turi filed his affidavit-in-chief and examined himself as the sole workman witness. Several
documents have been produced by the dependant son of the deceased employee, which have been marked as Exhibit
W-1 to W-10
(i) A photocopy of Death Registration Certificate of Jogeswar Turi is admitted in evidence as Exhibit W-1.
(ii) A copy of the Service Record Excerpt of the deceased employee is marked as Exhibit W- 2.
(iii)
Photocopy of the Screening Committee’s Report dated 05.10.2001 as Exhibit W- 3.
(iv)
A photocopy of the communication dated 28.04.2005 whereby the dependent was declared “unfit for
U/G job or employment”, as Exhibit W- 4.
(v)
A photocopy of the Medical Examination Report dated 30.11.2004, declaring the dependent unfit for
underground job as Exhibit W- 5.
(vi)
A copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.10.2012, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
A photocopy of the Application of Mahesh Turi dated 23.01.2013 requesting the management to refer
him for medical examination once again, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
A photocopy of Letter dated 10.02.2015 issued by the Chief Manager (Personnel), Sripur Area whereby
management referred Mahesh Turi for Medical Examination at Area Level, as Exhibit W-8.
(ix)
A photocopy of the Medical Report dated 13.04.2015 whereby Mahesh Turi was declared unfit for
underground job due to overage as Exhibit W-9.
(x)
A photocopy of Application of Mahesh Turi dated 21.04.2017 addressed to C.M.D., ECL, Sanctoria,
seeking necessary direction for his employment as Exhibit W-10.
In cross-examination the workman witness deposed that at present he is forty-one years of age and that he filed an
application within one month from the IME Board’s report requesting the management for referring him for medical
examination once again. On 13.04.2015 he was examined for the second time by the Medical Board and was again
declared unfit on the ground that he was overage. He admitted that in 2015 his age was assessed as more than thirty-
five years and claimed that he is entitled to get employment on the basis of report of medical examination.
8.
Mr. Ranveer Rathour, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Bhanora-Girmint Group of Mines under Sripur Area
of ECL deposed on behalf of the management of ECL as Management Witness -1. According to his statement in the
affidavit-in-chief, the management agreed to forward the case of Mahesh Turi to the Apex Medical Board, challenging
the previous medical report of IME Board. It is claimed that the ex-workman Jogeswar Turi has died more than
twenty years ago and his son is not eligible for claiming employment as per NCWA. In course of his evidence
management produced two reports of IME Board as Exhibit M-1 and M-2 and a copy of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10.10.2012 as Exhibit M-3.
During cross-examination the Management witness admitted that if the age determined by the IME Board on
13.04.2015 is correct then the age of Mahesh Turi at the time of death of his father in the year 1998 was twenty to
twenty-one years.
9.
The point for consideration now is whether the aggrieved dependent son of the deceased employee is entitled
to employment under ECL on compassionate ground according to the provisions of NCWA and the terms of
settlement in the Memorandum of Settlement.
10.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative advanced his argument in favour of Mahesh Turi and submitted
that on the death of Jogeswar Turi on 08.07.1998, an employment proposal in favour of Mahesh Turi was issued by
the management of ECL on 05.10.2001 (Exhibit W-3) leading to Initial Medical Examination of Mahesh Turi on
30.11.2004, where the age of Mahesh Turi was assessed as twenty to twenty-five years but he was declared medically
unfit due to mild deafness as per audiometry report of Central Hospital, Kalla. The copy of the Medical Report has
been marked as Exhibit W-5. Mr. Kumar further submitted that by letter dated 28.04.2005 the Personnel Manager
(I/C) informed the Agent of Girmint (R) Colliery that as per the P.M.E. Report Mahesh Turi was found “unfit for
underground job or employment”. The aggrieved dependent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol through the Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress and on 10.10.2012 a
Memorandum of Settlement was executed under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the
employer of Girmint Colliery under Sripur Area of ECL and their workman represented by Mr. Binod Kumar Singh,
Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress. It is argued that the management of Girmint Colliery agreed to forward the
case of Mahesh Turi to the headquarters for holding Apex Medical Board and the Industrial Dispute raised was
accordingly settled. Mahesh Turi submitted his application before the General Manager, Sripur Area on 23.01.2013
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3443
praying for holding a fresh IME at the Area level or send him to Company’s Hospital for audiometry test for deciding
whether he was fit for employment or not. The application for holding fresh IME was submitted, which is produced as
Exhibit W-7 and the management of the company accordingly referred him for IME at Area level by their letter dated
10/13.02.2015 (Exhibit W-8). It is contented that the second IME of the dependent son was held on 13.04.2015
(Exhibit M-9) where Mahesh Turi was found “Medically fit for employment in the mines but unfit for underground
job due to overage”. The union representative assailed the decision of the management on the ground that the Second
IME was required to be held only for the purpose of finding his fitness for employment and not for determination of
age which has already been determined in the earlier IME. It is argued that Second IME Board was not required to
assess the age of Mahesh Turi and its only consideration was whether the person was fit for employment or not for
medical reasons. The union representative urged that the Medical Board did find Mahesh Turi medically unfit for
employment and no jurisdiction was vested in it to observe that Mahesh Turi was unfit due to overage. It is claimed
that on the date of death of his father the dependent petitioner was twenty years and nine months. Therefore, according
to the provisions of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA – VI the dependent who is physically fit and suitable for employment and
aged not more than thirty-five years is to be considered for employment. It is argued that the age of the candidate
should be reckoned from the date of death of the ex-employee and not the date on which the medical examination was
held.
11.
In reply Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management argued that at the first instance the petitioner
dependent of the ex-employee was found to be medically unfit for employment and same was communicated to him.
After long lapse of over thirteen years an Industrial Dispute was raised by the union before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol and a settlement was reached where the management of Girmint Colliery of ECL
agreed to forward the case of Mahesh Turi to the Headquarters after receiving fresh application from Mahesh Turi for
holding Apex Medical Board challenging the previous IME Report. It is argued that the petitioner was referred to the
IME at Sripur Area, where he was found unfit due to overage. Learned advocate for ECL contended that the IME
assessed the age of Mahesh Turi between thirty-five to forty years on the date of medical examination i.e. 13.04.2015.
Therefore, he is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
12.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is undisputed that Jogeswar Turi, the father of
the petitioner died in harness on 08.07.1998. The management of the employer company has made provisions for
compassionate appointment of dependent of an employee who has died in harness or is medically declared unfit, while
in service and where no monetary compensation is paid. The decision of providing compassionate appointment
emanates out of a collective decision and not a subjective decision of an individual. Compassionate appointment is an
exception to the rule of regular appointment by open competition. It is a privilege extended by the employer in terms
of scheme for compassionate appointment itself. In the case of State Bank of India and Others vs Jaspal Kaur
[(2007) 9 SCC 571], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that public post is not heritable, therefore, the right to
compassionate appointment is not a heritable property. In case of compassionate appointment, the applicant should
meet all the stipulation of the scheme, including financial needs and other requirements.
13.
In the case of V. Sivamurthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2008) 13 SCC 730], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that :
“ 9. The principles relating to compassionate appointments may be summarized thus :
(a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should
be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible,
appointments on compassionate grounds are well recognised exception to the said general rule, carved
out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies.
(c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted,
unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in
accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies.”
In the instant case the provisions guiding compassionate appointment are laid down in Clause 9.3.2 to 9.5.0 of NCWA
– VI. For the purpose of fulfilling such criteria laid down in NCWA, though it is not necessary to find out if such
particular case evokes any compassion of the management but the objective criteria laid down in the provision relating
to the compassion appointment have to be strictly adhered to.
14.
In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India observed that:
“ The compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be
specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at
any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the
time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered
whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”
3444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The object of appointment of a dependent of a deceased employee, who died in harness is to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis resulting due to the death of the breadwinner who left the
family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Mere death of the employee does not entitle the dependent for
compassionate appointment.
15.
There are plethora of decisions where the courts have consistently held that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the regular appointment based on competitive merit in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The general rule is not departed from except where there are compelling circumstances. For the purpose of
granting compassionate appointment the Schemes and Rules framed by the establishment have to be followed strictly.
16.
In the instant case Jogeswar Turi the father of Mahesh Turi died in harness on 08.07.1998. The case for
compassionate appointment of Mahesh Turi was verified by the Screening Committee which submitted its report on
05.10.2001 (Exhibit W-3) holding preliminary inquiry. The dependent son of the workman was referred for his
medical examination and the report dated 30.11.2004 has been produced as (Exhibit W-5) which indicates that he was
declared medically unfit for Underground Job or Employment as he suffered from mild conductive deafness in both
ears and Tympanic Membrane were perforated. The result of medical examination was communicated to the
dependent son of the deceased employee. According to the norms of the company a person who is declared unfit for
duty by medical board has right to appeal before the competent authority within one month from the date of receipt of
IME Report. From the materials on record, it is gathered that the workmen union representing the dependent of
deceased employee raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol over
denial of employment to the dependent son of Jogeswar Turi. A Memorandum of Settlement was entered into under
Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the representative of employer and union and it was agreed
that the management of Girmint Colliery of ECL would forward the case of Mahesh Turi to the headquarters after
receiving fresh application from Mahesh Turi for holding Apex Medical Board challenging the previous Medical
Board’s report. The Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.10.2012 (Exhibit M-3) reveals that such dispute has come
up after seven years from the date of communication of the result of IME Board to Mahesh Turi. There is no
explanation on the part of the union representing the dependent job seeker as to why they have remained silent for
more than seven years before raising the Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Asansol. On the first occasion the dependent son was found medically unfit for employment in the Mines due to his
deafness. After arriving at settlement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol the dependent son
submitted a fresh application on 23.01.2013 for conducting fresh medical examination at Area level or for sending
him to ECL Sanctoria Hospital or Central Hospital, Kalla for audiometry test for deciding his fitness so that he could
get employment. From the sequence of events it appears to me that after being disqualified during his first medical
examination the dependent son through the workmen’s union placed his claim for employment once again after
several years from the date of death of his father. There is no iota of evidence to establish that the son of the deceased
employee was unable to tide over the crisis resulting due to the death of his father. There is no indication that the son
of the deceased employee claiming employment is without any means of livelihood. As the claim for employment is
not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future, I am of the considered view that simply due to death of
Jogeswar Turi in harness any right for employment accrued in favour of his son after long lapse of time. The
management of the company had provided opportunity to the dependent of the deceased but as he failed to fulfill the
conditions laid down in the scheme / rules for employment on compassionate ground his case cannot succeed.
17.
In view of my foregoing discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the above cases, I hold that the claim for compassionate appointment of Mahesh Turi raised in course of this Industrial
Dispute cannot be sustained and the same is dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the claim for compassionate appointment of Mahesh Turi, dependent of ex-employee of Girmint
Colliery, ECL is dismissed on contest. An award be drawn up in the light of my above discussion. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1554.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj नागे᳡र सातᮕाम कोिलयरी का ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV
(संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/95/2012-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3445
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 31/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Nageshwar Satgram Colliery of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023.
[No. L-22012/95/2012- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 31 OF 2012
PARTIES: Achu Munda
Vs.
Management of Nageshwar Satgram Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
29.08.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/95/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 01.08.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Nageshwar Satgram Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Nageshwar Satgram Colliery is just and fair, not to providing
employment to Sri Achu Munda in place of his father Late Sukra Munda, only on the ground that he is son of
2nd wife, while in all the service record, Achu Munda is son of Late Sukra Munda. To what relief management
can provide to Sri Achu Munda? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/95/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 01.08.2012 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 31 of 2012 was registered on
17.08.2012 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Achu Munda the dependant son of Late Sukra Munda represented the workers’ union Koyala Mazdoor
Congress, filed written statement, wherein it is contended that the union raised an Industrial Dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol for employment of Achu Munda, the son of Late Sukra Munda,
which ended in a failure and the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India referred the scheduled
dispute before this Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court at Asansol for adjudication. The fact
of the case, giving raise to the dispute is that Late Sukra Munda was a permanent employee of Nageshwar Satgram
Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) posted as Surface
Trammer, having U.M. No. 314457. Sukra Munda died on 24.09.2007 while he was in service. Achu Munda, son of
Late Sukra Munda applied for providing employment to him in place of his father and submitted necessary
documents. It is the case of the union that Achu Munda is entitled to get employment according to the provisions of
the National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA). The screening committee at the Colliery and
Area Office arranged for medical examination of Achu Munda by the Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter
3446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
referred to as IME) Board and forwarded the proposal to ECL headquarters for his employment. the Personnel
Manager (EMPL) ECL headquarters subsequently regretted the proposal for employment. it is the case of the
petitioner that Late Sukra Munda during his lifetime nominated Achu Munda, his son and the name of Achu Munda
was recorded in the Service Excerpt, Form PS-3, Form PS-4 and the management accepted the nomination of Achu
Munda as the son of Late Sukra Munda. Achu Munda also received LTC and LLTC benefits along with other family
members of Late Sukra Munda. Achu Munda has been described as son of Late Sukra Munda in all records and
nowhere it is mentioned that Achu Munda is the son of his second wife. In the Service Excerpt Form the name of Smt.
B. Radhi Mundain and Achu Munda were recorded along with the names of other dependents of Late Sukra Munda.
Achu Munda was also nominated for payment of Gratuity and CMPF amount of his father. He received medical
facilities and other benefits of the company as the son of Late Sukra Munda. The dependant of the workman
contended that in various cases the second wife and a son born to the second wife are given benefits of wife and son
and even live-in relationship were also accepted by Courts. The NCWA has made no distinction between second wife
and first wife. Achu Munda the son of Late Sukra Munda therefore, should be provided with employment in place of
his father. The union has prayed for providing employment to Achu Munda in terms with provisions of NCWA and
for payment of monetary compensation to the wife of Late Sukra Munda from the date of his death till providing of
employment to the dependant son.
3.
Notice was issued to the Agent, Nageshwar Satgram Colliery of ECL under registered post which was duly
served upon him in the year 2012. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared on behalf of management of ECL for the
first time on 06.11.2012 and several dates were fixed for submitting written statement by the management. After filing
of written statement on behalf of the dependant of workman on 06.02.2013, twenty opportunities were granted to the
management but they did not file any written statement. The case was ultimately fixed for ex-parte hearing against
ECL on 12.07.2016. Several questions crept up for consideration as to whether Achu Munda is the son of the first wife
of Late Sukra Munda or whether Achu Munda was born from the marriage between Late Sukra Munda and Smt.
Kayri Munda, the second wife of Late Sukra Munda. Question also arose if Late Sukra Munda contracted his second
marriage with Smt. Kayri Munda during subsistence of his first marriage and what decision the management of ECL
has taken finally regarding the claim for employment of the dependant son. The response of the Agent, Nageshwar
Satgram Colliery under Satgram Area of ECL and their advocate is conspicuously silent without any response to the
issue. This type of inaction on the part of a public sector company is beyond contemplation and cannot be appreciated.
4.
On 26.09.2022 Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the management of ECL and
sought accommodation for hearing of argument. No Vokalatnama was filed by him. On 30.11.2022 the union
representing Achu Munda prayed for recalling the workman witness for his re-examination the purpose of admitting
some documents in evidence as exhibits. The witness was re-examined by union and cross-examined on behalf of
ECL. On 30.01.2023 Mr. Sanjib Kumar Ghosh, Manager (Personnel), Satgram Group of Mines, Satgram Area, ECL,
the management representative was called upon to look into the matter and submit a report within a fortnight as to
why the son of the second wife was denied employment. A report was submitted on 20.03.2023 wherein it is stated
that Smt. B. Radhi Mundain the first wife of Late Sukra Munda expired on 21.07.1995 at Central Hospital, Kalla,
ECL. Her name was deleted from the records of the company on 19.11.2003 and the name of Smt. Munda Kayri was
recorded as the second wife of Late Sukra Munda. Late Sukra Munda expired on 24.09.2007 thereafter Smt. Munda
Kayri submitted an application nominating Achu Munda for his employment on compassionate ground as the nominee
of the deceased employee. It is further stated in the report that the age of Achu Munda in the Service Record was
entered as six years in 1983 and in the LTC declaration it was mentioned as six years in 1986. Therefore, the year of
birth of Achu Munda may be calculated as 1977 and 1980 respectively. In the Madhyamik Certificate the date of birth
of Achu Munda was recorded as 18.05.1983. The father’s name of Achu Munda in the Madhyamik Certificate is
recorded as Sukar Munda in place of Late Sukra Munda. Further case of the management of ECL is that at the time of
screening for employment Smt. Munda Kayri identified Achu Munda as her son from the marriage with Late Sukra
Munda. The name of Smt. Munda Kayri was included in the service record only in the year 2003 as per the declaration
of ex-employee. In their report ECL raised a question whether Achu Munda was born from the marriage between Smt.
Munda Kayri and Late Sukra Munda, therefore Achu Munda cannot be considered as the biological son of Late Sukra
Munda. Further contention is that if there was marital relationship between them before 1995 then such marriage is
void marriage during the life time of first wife, Late Smt. B. Radhi Mundain. According to the management of ECL
employment could not be granted to Achu Munda as the relationship between the claimant and the deceased employee
could not be established beyond doubt.
5.
For the purpose of assessing the nature of claim for employment, by Achu Munda it is apposite to refer to the
guiding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs V.R. Tripathi
[(2019) 14 SCC 646] wherein it has been observed that:
“ 11.
The policy of compassionate appointment is premised on the death of an employee while in harness. The
death of an employee is liable to render the family in a position of financial hardship and need. Compassionate
appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature
death while in service. Compassionate appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on parentage or descent,
for public employment must be consistent with equality of opportunity which Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees.
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3447
Hence, before a claim for compassionate appointment is asserted by the family of a deceased employee or is granted
by the State, the employer must have rules or a scheme which envisage such appointment. It is in that sense that it is a
trite principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. Even where there is a scheme of
compassionate appointment, an application for engagement can only be considered in accordance with and subject to
fulfilling the conditions of the rules or the scheme…………….”
6.
In the case of V. Sivamurthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2008) 13 SCC 730], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Inda summarised the principles relating to compassionate appointment as follows :
“ (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service
should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit,
having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of
appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are a well-recognised exception
to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies.
(c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the
service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme
governing such appointments and against existing vacancies…………….”
In order to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of Achu Munda it needs to be considered whether he
has fulfilled the criteria laid down in the Scheme for compassionate appointment. In NCWA-VI, Clause 9.3.2 deals
with providing employment to one dependant of the worker who died while in service.
Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-VI lays down that :
“ The dependant for this purpose means the wife / husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and
legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter /
widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependent on the
earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the deceased.”
In clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-VI it is further stated that :
“ The dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and
aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45
years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding
provision of employment.”
7.
From the above mentioned decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India it may be derived that the
compassionate appointment in public sector undertaking is an exception to the rule that the appointment in public
service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit having regard to
the certain provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8.
Bearing the above principles in mind it would now be appropriate to deal with different aspect of this case. In
the written statement filed by the General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol on behalf of Achu Munda,
it has been claimed that Achu Munda is the son of Late Sukra Munda, the deceased employee and he is entitled to get
employment and other benefits due to death of his father. There is however material suppression of facts as to who
gave birth to the claimant, whether by Late Smt. B. Radhi Mundain, the first wife or Smt. Kayri Munda, the second
wife. It is a settled principle of law that under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it is clearly
enunciated that the children who are born from a marriage which is null and void are legitimate. Therefore, a child
born from a marriage which is null and void is protected by the law and is treated as legitimate child under Section 16
(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
9.
While adducing evidence, Achu Munda, workman witness – 1 in his affidavit-in-chief stated that his name is
included in the Service Excerpt Form, PS-3 and PS-4 Form and all other records of the company as son and there is no
dispute regarding the genuineness of his relationship with Late Sukra Munda. He applied for providing employment in
place of his father and he has no source of income to maintain himself and his family. The witness has produced a
copy of Death Registration Certificate of Late Sukra Munda as Exhibit W-1. A copy of Death Certificate issued by
Central Hospital Kalla as Exhibit W-2. A copy of Form PS-3 as Exhibit W-3, A copy of Form PS-4 a Exhibit W-4. A
Death Registration Certificate of Smt. B. Radhi Mundain as Exhibit W-5. A copy of Office Order dated 18.11.2003
whereby the name of Smt. B. Radhi Mundain, the first wife who died on 21.07.1995 was deleted and the name of Smt.
Munda Kayri was recorded as second wife is marked as Exhibit W-6. A copy of the No Objection Certificate executed
by the other legal heirs of Late Sukra Munda in favour of Achu Munda as Exhibit W-7. A copy of Voter ID Card as
Exhibit W-8. A copy of Aadhaar Card as Exhibit W-9. A copy of the Madhyamik Pariksha Certificate as Exhibit
W-10.
No evidence has been adduced by the management of ECL as no written statement was filed by them and they have
no specific case in response to the case of Achu Munda.
3448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
Though the management has not come forward to challenge the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment, the merit of this case has to be decided on the available material and from the trend of cross-examination
by the management of ECL. The claimant / petitioner cannot succeed on the basis of the weakness of the management
but it can only succeed on the basis of his own strength which is to be decided independently. In course of cross-
examination of Achu Munda, no suggestion was put to him that he is not the biological son of Late Sukra Munda or
that he is not eligible for compassionate appointment on the death of Late Sukra Munda.
11.
It is gathered from Form PS-3 (Exhibit W-3) produced by Achu Munda that his age is recorded as sixteen
years on 29.05.1998. Therefore, his year of birth is 1982. In the Voter ID Card (Exhibit W-8) the age of Achu Munda
is recorded as eighteen years as on 01.01.2001. Therefore, his year of birth is 1983. In the Aadhaar Card (Exhibit W-
9) and in the Madhyamik Pariksha Certificate (Exhibit W-10) his date of birth is recorded as 11.05.1983. In his
statement before the Screening Committee of ECL Achu Munda disclosed that his age as twenty-five years. It is clear
from the date of birth appearing in the Exhibits W-3, W-8, W-9, and W-10 that the year of birth of Achu Munda was
1983 and he was born prior to the death of Smt. B. Radhi Mundain on 21.07.1995. There is no evidence on record to
suggest that Late Sukra Munda had married Smt. Kayri Munda during the lifetime of Late Smt. B. Radhi Mundain
before 1983. There is no material to suggest that Achu Munda was born from the marriage of Late Sukra Munda and
Smt. Kayri Munda. Therefore, I am unable to hold that Achu Munda is the biological son of Late Sukra Munda. It is
true that a child born out of second marriage is considered a legitimate child under Section 16 (1) of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered for compassionate appointment on
the principle that children do not choose their parents. However, there should be some material to suggest that a child
was born in course of the second marriage. Unless such proof is available, the claim of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment would be relegated. The claimant should prove that he is the biological son born in course
of the marriage.
12.
The Office Order dated 18.11.2003 issued by the Manager Mithapur (R) Colliery (Exhibit W-6) indicates that
the competent authority had approved to delete the name of Smt. B. Radhi Mundain, the first wife who expired on
21.07.1998 and include the name of Smt. Munda Kayri as the second wife in the service file of Late Sukra Munda,
Truck Khalasi of Nageshwar Satgram Colliery under Satgram Area of ECL. There is no evidence before this Tribunal
as to when the second marriage between Late Sukra Munda and Smt. Kayri Munda took place. Even if the second
marriage took place during the lifetime of the first wife, the son born from the second marriage would be treated as
legitimate and would be entitled to claim employment in the capacity of a son, as provided in Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA-
VI. Along with report filed on 20.03.2023 the Manager (Personnel) of Satgram Group of Mines filed a copy of a
document relating to the examination of Achu Munda by the Screening Committee of the company. From his
statement before the screening committee, it appears that his mother is Smt. Kayri Munda, the second wife of Late
Sukra Munda and he has born from their wedlock. He also stated that he was already married and his age was twenty-
five years. Unfortunately, no date is appearing on the face of the document on which the statement is recorded. Taking
the statement as it is, I find that Achu Munda was born to Smt. Kayri Munda prior to her marriage with Late Sukra
Munda. Therefore, there is dearth of evidence to establish that Achu Munda is the biological son of Late Sukra
Munda. In a case for compassionate appointment the claimant must strictly fulfill the requisites laid down in the
Scheme for providing such type of appointment.
13.
In my considered view Achu Munda and the representative of union has consciously suppressed the material
facts and failed to prove that he is biological son of the deceased employee. From the contents of his statement before
the Screening Committee, which bears the signature of Achu Munda, he stated that he is already married. Such fact of
marriage indicates that Achu Munda has sufficient means to take care of his wife and family and therefore, the
claimant is not in a penurious condition. Sixteen years have passed since the death of Late Sukra Munda and Achu
Munda has been able to tide over the situation. He was already an adult member of his family at the time of death of
Late Sukra Munda. Therefore, in my considered opinion this is not an appropriate case for granting compassionate
appointment to the claimant. Smt. Kayri Munda, the widow of Late Sukra Munda is however entitled to monetary
compensation from the date of death of Sukra Munda till she attained her age of sixty years in terms of the Clause
9.5.0 (iv) of NCWA-VI applicable to her. The Industrial Dispute is therefore allowed in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the claim for compassionate appointment of Achu Munda on the death of Sukra Munda is dismissed on
contest. Smt. Kayri Munda, wife of Late Sukra Munda is entitled to monetary compensation from the management of
ECL from the date of death of Sukra Munda in terms with the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 (iv) of NCWA-VI till she is
sixty years of age. An award be drawn up in the light of my above decision. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—ख᭛ ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपᮢ : िसत᭥ बर 23, 2023/आि᳡न 1, 1945
3449
नई ᳰद᭨ली, 20 िसत᭥ बर, 2023
का.आ. 1555.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
िचनाकुरी खदान नंबर II का ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (संदभᭅ
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/119/2019-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
मिणकंदन एन, उप िनदेशक
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2023
S.O. 1555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 09/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Chinakuri Mine No.II of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/09/2023
[No. L-22012/119/2019- IR(CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 09 OF 2020
PARTIES: Kantu Hembram
Vs.
Management of Chinakuri Mine No. II of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman: Mr. R. K. Tripathi, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management:
Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
28.08.2023
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/119/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Chinakuri Mine No. II under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Chinakuri Mine No.
II under Sodepur Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Kantu Hembram, Ex-U.G. Loader of
Chinakuri Mine No. II w.e.f. 30.10.2016 (30.10.1996) is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/119/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.02.2020 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 09 of 2020 was registered on
3450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 23, 2023/ASVINA 1, 1945
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.02.2020 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited has appeared
accompanying Mr. Sumanta Bhattacharya, the Management witness. Instant case relates to a dispute raised over
dismissal of Kantu Hembram, Ex-Underground Loader of Chinakuri Mine No. II w.e.f. 30.10.1996. After issuance of
Notice, written statement has been submitted by the management along with affidavit of the management witness.
Mr. R. K. Tripathi, union representative sought several adjournments and finally did not file any written statement for
the aggrieved workman.
3.
The case is fixed up today for ex-parte hearing of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. Tripathi filed an
application stating that the concerned employee is not interested to continue with the case and the same may be
dropped. Copy of application is served upon Mr. Das, learned advocate for the Eastern Coalfields Limited. Having
considered the dispute involved, the Schedule and the circumstances of the case, I hold that there is no dispute
between the parties any more for adjudication and the Reference case is disposed of in the form of a No Dispute
Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. SARVESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Digitally signed by SARVESH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2023.10.14 11:47:17 +05'30'