6365 GI/2023

(3657)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 42]

नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 15—अक् तूबर 21, 2023, िजनवार/ आज‍ वन 23—आज‍ वन 29, 1945

No. 42]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 15—OCTOBER 21, 2023, SATURDAY/ASVINA 23—ASVINA 29, 1945

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

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(रािस्ट्व जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1645.—केन्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के

जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्री अप्रत् क्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क बोडड के अिीन, आ ुक्त,

सीमािुल्क का का ाडल , न ा सीमािुल्क सिन, कांडला- 370210 जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमडचारर ों ने जिन्िी का

का ड सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जिन्िी-II-अजिसूचना]

जिमबबंिु मुिुम्बई, सं ुक् त सजचव (प्रिा.) सीबीआईसी

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-18112023-250126

CG-DL-W-18112023-250126

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-18112023-250126

CG-DL-W-18112023-250126

3658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2023

S.O. 1645.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, New Customs

house, Kandala- 370210, under Central Bord of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of revenue where more than

80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-II-Notification]

HIMABINDU MUDUMBAI, Jt. Secy. (Ad.) CBIC

जविेि मन्त्राल

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1646.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, वाबिंगटन मे^ेँ िमेंर बसंि और सजमी ृाहुिा, सिा क अनुभाग

अजिकारर ो को दिनांक 06 अक्टूबर, 2023 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारर ो के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवडिन के

जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2023(31)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2023

S.O. 1646.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Mr. Dharmendra Singh

and Ms. Sami Pahuja, both Assistant Section Officer in the Embassy of India, Washington, as Assistant Consular

Officer to perform Consular services with effect from October 6, 2023.

[F. No.T.4330/01/2023(31)]

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

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1647.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारती उच्चा ोग जललोंग्वे मलावी मे^ेँ अंदकत कुमार, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को

दिनांक 06 अक्टूबर 2023 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवडिन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती

िज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/1/2023(32)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3659

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2023

S.O. 1647.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Mr. Ankit Kumar,

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

Consular services with effect from October 6, 2023.

[F. No.T. 4330/01/2023(32)]

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

नई दिल्ली, 12 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1648.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, जन ामे मे^ेँ ओम प्रकाि, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को दिनांक

12 अक्टूबर 2023 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवडिन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2023(33)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

New Delhi, the12th October, 2023

S.O. 1648.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Om Prakash,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Niamey to perform the Consular

services with effect from October 12, 2023.

[F. No.T.4330/01/2023(33)]

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

नागर जवमानन मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 29 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1649.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग), जन म, 1976 के

जन म-10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्राल के अंतगडत, नागर जवमानन मिाजनिेिाल के उृ

जनिेिक, उड़न ोग् ता का का ाडल , गुवािाटी, जिनमें 80 प्रजतित कार्मडकों ने बिंिी का का डसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा

िज, को एतद्द्वारा अजि सूजच त करती िज।

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]

ृी ूष श्रीवास्ट् तव, वरर्‍ आर् डक सलािकार एवं अृर सजचव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1649.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the Deputy Director, Office of Air

worthiness, Guwahati, subordinate office of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, under Ministry of Civil

Aviation , whereof 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

PIYUSH SRIVASTAVA, Senior Economic Advisor & Addl. Secy.

3660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1650.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग), जन म, 1976 के

जन म-10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्राल के अंतगडत, भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण के

जनम् नजलज त का ाडल ों, जिनमें 80 प्रजतित कार्मडकों ने बिंिी का का डसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज,

को एतद्द्वारा अजि सूजच त करती िज।

जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का का ाडल , भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, केिोि िवाई अड्डा

भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, कांडला जवमानक्षेत्र, अंिार, कच् छ

)

गुिरात

(

भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, सूरत िवाई अड्डा, सूरत

जवमानृत् तन जनिेिक का का ाडल , भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, डोनी ृोलो िवाई अड्डा, ईटानगर,

अप णाचल प्रिेि

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]

ृी ूष श्रीवास्ट् तव, वरर्‍ आर् डक सलािकार एवं अृर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2023

S.O. 1650.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official

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

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

Hindi.

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Keshod Airport

Airports Authority of India, Kandla Airport, Anjar, Kutch (Gujarat)

Airports Authority of India, Surat Airport, Surat

Office of the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, Doni Polo Airport, Itanagar, Arunachal

Pradesh

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

PIYUSH SRIVASTAVA, Senior Economic Advisor & Addl. Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2023

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

ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

सि -

] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2023-

- (

.एम -II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2023

S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 20/2020) 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 13/09/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3661

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM –LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. 20/2020

Ref. No.-D/830/AB/2020/22/IRDN dt. 03/9.09.2020

BETWEEN

Sri Fahim Ahmad S/o Sri Rahmat Khan

Village and Post Indepur Tehsil-Sadar,

District- Shahjahanpur (U.P.)

Sri Rajendra Saxena (Representative)

M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P. No. 315, Katia Tolla,

Shahajanpur (U.P.)

AND

The General Manager (Principal Employer)

FCI, Regional Office, TC/3 V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010

The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority)

FCI, District Office, Shahjahanpur (UP)

AWARD

By order No. D/830/AB/2020/22/IRDN dt. 03/9.09.2020 present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal dispute in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- Section (1) and sub-

Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with

following schedule:

“Whether the termination of the service of Sri Fahim S/o Shri Ramat Khan, 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 an industrial dispute No. 20/2020 has been registered.

By an order 16.09.2022 last opportunity was granted to claimant to file written statement thereafter once

again last opportunity was granted to file written statement failing which the matter should be proceeded for ex-parte

hearing.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.05.2023 neither claimant/authorize representative appeared

on his behalf nor claim petition was filed.

Accordingly I have heard learned counsel for respondent and perused on record.

Taking into consideration the fact till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order to

establish his claim as per the reference dated 03/9.09.2020

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. Industries

Vs. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29( FLR 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 raised 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”.

3662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the case of M/s Uptron powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary V. Presiding

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

under:-

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shankar Chakravarti Vs 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 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 and allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would

be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

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

C.C.S.C. Services V. Secretary-cum- G.M. District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been

held as under:-

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

shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead

evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any

evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the

reference has to be dismissed”.

As the workman had 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:-

Lucknow

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Date: 11.07.2023

ubZ fnYyh] 29 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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (एल.सी.आवेिन

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

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

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023

S.O. 1652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (L.C.Application No. 02/2013) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/09/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

L. C. APPLICATION NO. 02 OF 2013

PARTIES: Khakru Bhuia

Vs.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3663

(i) Agent, Naba Kajora Colliery, ECL

(ii) General Manager, Kajora Area, ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Khakru Bhuia (in person).

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

18.07.2023

AWARD

Instant application under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by Khakru Bhuia,

ex-employee of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, praying for payment of dues in respect of wages, Quarterly Bonus,

PPLB, Earned Leave wages, and Interest to him amounting to Rs.3,25,332.20/- (Rupees three lakh twenty-five

thousand three hundred thirty-two and twenty paise only) for the period from 01.03.2007 to 30.06.2008.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited / opposite party is present accompanied by

Mr. Ramjee Tripathi, representative of the management. On call at 01:25 PM none appears for Khakru Bhuia. Mr.

Das has filed a Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H dated 30.05.2023 in respect of the claims made by their ex-

employee i.e. Khakru Bhuia, enclosing a photocopy of a document of State Bank of India which shows that

Rs.74,989.42/- has been transferred in favour of Khakru Bhuia on 01.06.2023.

The applicant in his application under Section 33 C (2) contended that he had performed his duty without

any break till his superannuation on 30.06.2008. However, the applicant has not been paid his wages and other

benefits from 01.03.2007 to 30.06.2008 for sixteen months and he is entitled to wages of Rs.1,86,227.20/-, Quarterly

Bonus of Rs.40,165/-, PPLB of Rs.15,000/-, Earn Leave wages of Rs.14,000/-, and Interest of Rs.70,000/-. The total

claim in this case is of Rs.3,25,332.20/-.

The Agent, Naba Kajora Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited filed a written statement on 30.03.2015

contending that non-payment of wages does not come under purview of Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and the opposite party is not liable to pay any wages. The case was taken up for evidence of Khakru Bhuia.

Khakru Bhuia has been examined as workman witness - 1. The main contention of management is that the Date of

Birth of the applicant is mentioned as 01.07.1947, as such he attained his superannuation on 30.06.2007.

The management did not adduce any evidence to dislodge the claim that the workman did not perform his

duty till 30.06.2008. In course of time, a Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H dated 30.05.2023 has been filed and

the payable dues was settled at Rs.74,989.42/-. Further condition in the settlement is that neither party shall raise any

dispute before any Forum / Court of Law regarding the issue of wages for working beyond the date of superannuation

or any other service benefit arising out of the said settlement and that Khakru Bhuia shall not demand any

consequential payment arising out of payment of wages like difference of gratuity, CMPF, Pension and Earned Leave

encashment. It has also been agreed that the payment would be made by the management within fifteen days of

signing of the agreement. In accordance with such agreement, the management of the opposite party made a transfer

of Rs. 74,989.42/- in favour of petitioner on 01.06.2023. The L.C. Application under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is accordingly disposed of in favour of the petitioner. The Memorandum of Settlement dated

30.05.2023 in two pages is made a part of this Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the L. C. Application filed under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is disposed of in

favour of the petitioner in terms of settlement dated 30.05.2023, treating the Memorandum of Settlement in Form-H

as part of the Award. Copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi

under section 33 C (4) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 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

3664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/589/99-vkbZ- vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2023

S.O. 1653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ((Ref. No. 68/2000) 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 21/09/2023.

[No. L-22012/589/99 – 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. 68 OF 2000

PARTIES: N. B. Roy

Vs.

Management of Ratibati Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, Adv.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

13.09.2023

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-22012/589/99/IR(CM-II) dated 06/21.07.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Ratibati Colliery under Satgram-Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Ratibati Colliery under ECL in denying the payment of wages in

lieu of unavailed accumulated earned leave particularly while the leave application was refused / recorded

by the management prior to retirement is legal, valid and justified? If not, to what relief Sh. N. B. Roy,

Assistant Foreman is entitled? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/589/99/IR(CM-II) dated 06/21.07.2000 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 68 of 2000 was registered on

07.08.2000 / 18.10.2001 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them

to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of

witnesses.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited and Mr. Sayantan

Mukherjee, learned advocate for N. B. Roy, aggrieved workman are present. The case is fixed up today for

appearance of Mr. Sandip Kumar Saha, Agent, Satgram-Ratibati Group of Mines, ECL and for filing of Memorandum

of Settlement. Prasanta Roy, son of N. B. Roy is present. A Memorandum of Settlement is filed by management of

ECL in Form ‘H’ duly executed by Mr. Sandip Kumar Saha, Agent, Satgram-Ratibati Group of Mines, ECL on behalf

of the management and Mr. N. B. Roy, aggrieved workman who put his Left Thumb Impression identified by his son.

Dispute between parties is resolved on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement, wherein it is stated that the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3665

company has paid Rs. 22,507.31/- (Rupees twenty-two thousand five hundred seven and thirty-one paise only) to Mr.

N. B. Roy, Ex-Asst. Foreman of Ratibati Colliery against his unavailed Earned Leave dues for sixty-seven days. In

view of the settlement reached, the Industrial Dispute is disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated

13.09.2023. Let an Award be passed in favour of workman treating the Memorandum of Settlement in one (1) page as

part of the Award. Attendance of Mr. Sandip Kumar Saha is dispensed with.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is disposed of in favour of the workman in terms of the Memorandum of

Settlement dated 13.09.2023 in Form ‘H’, treating the same as a part of the Award. Let copies of the Award in

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

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1654.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

ऑ ल एंड नेचुरल गजस कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कमडकार के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-35/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक

में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ाl

[सं. एल-30011/85/2006-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Their Workmen which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. L-30011/85/2006-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE KESANG DOMA BHUTIA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/35 of 2007

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party Management :

Absent.

For the second party workmen

Absent.

Dated the 23^rd day of August, 2023.

3666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Both the parties are found absent when the matter is called.

As per record, today has been fixed for evidence from the side of the union. On perusal of the record, it is

seen that since 25.09.2014 union which has espoused the present dispute has not been taking any step or pursuing

with the present reference case. Though in the record, I find the union has filed claim statement and management has

also filed its written statement way back in the year 2008 and 2012 respectively. Therefore, a presumption can be

drawn that both the sides are aware of the pendency of the present reference case. Therefore, non appearance on both

the sides for more than 9 years, a presumption can be drawn either union is no more interested to pursue the dispute

espoused against the employer or dispute might had been settled between union and the management.

However, by order No. L-30011/85/2006 (IR(M)) dated 16.07.2007, the Central Government, Ministry of

Labour in exercise of the power conferred under section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

referred the following issues to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“1. Whether, the provisions of ID Act, 1947 and other various labour laws of this country are applicable to

‘Offshore Employees’ engaged in ‘Bombay High’ beyond 12 nautical miles? 2. Whether, there is change in service

conditions as per Section 9-A of ID Act, 1947 i.r.o. ‘Tenure Based Employees’ in view of co-joint reading of

Schemes circulated vide Memo No. MRBC/RECTT/3480/2001 dated 15/11/2001 and Scheme circulated vide Memo

No. MR/MH/FO(TB)/ELECT-1/2005 dated 29/1/2005 by the ONGC Ltd. Mumbai Region? 3. Whether the demand

of the union for regularization of these ‘Tenure Based Employees’ at par with regular workmen is proper, legal and

justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

In the record, apart from the pleadings of the parties, there is neither oral or documentary evidence to

substantiate the claim made by the union or defence taken by the management. Infact, nothing is there to prove the

issue under reference save and accept the un-corroborated pleadings of the parties.

In view of above discussion, no dispute award is hereby passed.

Accordingly, reference case No. CGIT- 35 of 2007 is disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1655.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और भावनगर डीवीएन. बीमा कमडचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-31/2006) को िजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त

हुआ ाl

[सं. एल-17011/5/2005-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to LIC of India and Bhavnagar Dvn. Insurances Workers Association which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. L-17011/5/2005-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3667

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 13^th September, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 31/2006

The Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Neelam Park,

BHAVNAGAR(GUJARAT)

.……….First Party/Employer

The General Secretary,

Bhavnagar Dvn. Insurances Workers Association,

LIC of India, Neelam Park,

BHAVNAGAR(GUJARAT)

.……….Second Party/Workmen

Adv. for the First Party employer

: Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party workman

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-17011/5/2005-

IR(M) dated 28.02.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Bhavnagar in imposing the penalty

of reduction in the lower stage in time scale by two stages on Shri R. G. Ramani, Assistant justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

1. The matter was taken up today. First Party/employer is represented through Shri K. V. Gadhia and Shri M.

K. Patel Advocates. None responded for Second Party workmen/union. The reference dates back to

28.02.2006. Second Party workman sought time on 03.07.2019. Thereafter he has not been turning up for

leading evidence despite giving several opportunities. The second party workman/union was afforded last

opportunity on 18.01.2023, but for no avail. It appears that the Second Party workman is not interested to

proceed further in the matter.

2. The workman has neither appeared nor filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim under

reference. Hence the claim under reference stands dismissed for want of evidence.

3. The reference is thus answered accordingly against the workman.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

3668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1656.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससड ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड; मेससड िे. िे. रावल; िे.बी. बरोट; मेससड सन रेवल्स; मेससड

के.आर.िेसाई; मेससड एच. आर. चौिरी; मेससड िनक रांसृोटड कंृनी; मेससड जवनोि रांसृोटड; मेससड चौिरी रांसृोटड

कंृनी; मेससड गुरु कषृा रजवल एिेंसी; मेससड िररजसजद्ध रांसृोटड; मेससड एस. आर. चौिरी; मेससड सन रांसृोटड; मेससड लैंड

लोस्ट्सेर को-ऑृरेरटव सोसाइटी; मेससड िेव ऑ ल फील्ड सर्वडस; मेससड ईश्वरभाई एस. चौिरी; मेससड दिजग्वि

एंटरप्राइि; मेससड तृस्ट्वी रांसृोटड एवं मेससड सुरेि तेल क्षेत्र इकाई और र र ाव के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

ग्लोरर स ृेरोजल म मििूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल ,

अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-183/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ाl

[सं. एल-30011/19/2018-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 183/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to M/s. ONGC Ltd.; ONGC Ltd., M/s. J. J. Raval; M/s. J. B. Barot; M/s. Sun Travels;

M/s. K. R. Desai; M/s. H. R. Chaudhary; M/s. Janak Transport Company; M/s. Vinod Transport;

M/s. Chaudhary Transport company; M/s. Guru Krupa Travel Agency; M/s. Harisidhhi Transport;

M/s. S. R. Chaudhary; M/s. Sun Transport; M/s. Land Losser Co-operative Society; M/s. Dev Oil Field

Service; M/s. Ishwarbhai S. Chaudhary; M/s. Digvijay Enterprise; M/s. Tapasvi Transport & M/s. Suresh Oil

Field Unit and Maintenance and Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. L-30011/19/2018-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 11^th September, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 183/2018

1. The Executive Director-Asset Manager,

M/s. ONGC Ltd., KDM Bhavan,

Palavasna,

Mehsana(Gujarat)

2. The Head of Logistics, Near Workshop,

ONGC Ltd.,

Mehsana(Gujarat)

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3669

3. M/s. J. J. Raval,

Near Vijay Guest House,Highway,

Mehsana (Gujarat).

4. M/s. J. B. Barot,

Nr. Dudh Sagar Dairy,

Jail Road, Mehsana (Gujarat)

5. M/s. Sun Travels,

45, Umiya Shopping Center,

Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)

6. M/s. K. R. Desai,

Near Vijay Guest House,Highway,

Mehsana (Gujarat).

7. M/s. H. R. Chaudhary,

6, Shankar Nagar Society,

Nr. Dudh Sagar Dairy,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

8. M/s. Janak Transport Company,

Near Simandhar Flat,

Near Pasabhai Petrol Pump,

Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)

9. M/s. Vinod Transport,

19, Prakukh Enclave,

Near Star Line Care,

Nagalpur, Highway,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

10. M/s. Chaudhary Transport Company,

Arbuda Complex, Near Gurudwara,

Jail Road, Mehsana (Gujarat)

11. M/s. Guru Krupa Travel Agency,

1, Hira Laxmi Chambers,

Dairy Road, Mehsana (Gujarat)

12. M/s. Harisidhhi Transport,

Near Nagalpur College,

Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)

13. M/s. S. R. Chaudhary,

54, Urmi Shopping Centre,

Near B. K. Cinema,

Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)

14. M/s. Sun Transport,

54, Urmi Shopping Centre,

Near B. K. Cinema,

3670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)

15. M/s. Land Losser Co-operative Society,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

16. M/s. Dev Oil Field Service,

Plot No.2, Near Nagalpur College,

Highway, Mehsana (Gujarat)

17. M/s. Ishwarbhai S. Chaudhary,

Swagat Plaza, Near Good Luck Highway,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

18. M/s. Digvijay Enterprise,

Haduva Village,

Near Sobhasan, Post Sobhasan,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

19. M/s. Tapasvi Transport,

Umiya Shopping Centre,

B Division, Mehsana (Gujarat)

20. M/s. Suresh Oil Field Unit and Maintenance,

Near Mahendra Show Room,

Near Janpath Hotel,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

.……….First Parties/Employer

The General Secretary,

Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh,

A/3, Priya Darshini Society,

Near Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad (GUJARAT)-380 019

.……….Second Party/Workmen

Adv. for the First Party employer

: Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party workmen

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/19/2018-

IR(M) dated 06.12.2018 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of General Secretary, Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad to give job security

to the list of workers(The list of 269 workers enclosed) engaged through contractor under ONGC Ltd., Mehsana

is legal, fair and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date? What other

directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. The matter was taken up today. First Party/employer is represented through Shri K. V. Gadhia and Shri M.

K. Patel Advocates. None responded for Second Party/Workmen’s union. The reference dates back to

06.12.2018. Second Party/workman has service vide acknowledgement Ex.11 and sought time on

20.05.2019. Thereafter he has not been turning up for filing statement of claim despite giving several

opportunities. The second party/workmen’s union was afforded last opportunity on 18.11.2022 and another

opportunity on 03.05.2023 to appear and file his statement of claim. It appears that the Second

Party/workmen’s union is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3671

2. The workmen’s union has neither filed statement of claim nor any evidence to substantiate the claim under

reference. Hence the claim under reference stands dismissed for want of evidence.

3. The reference is thus answered accordingly against the workmen.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1657.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री एन. चंती बोली रामय् ा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-91/2014) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल -17012/11/2014- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 91/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to LIC of India and Sri N. Chanti Boli Ramayya which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. L-17012/11/2014-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 21^st day of August, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 91/2014

Between:

Sri N. Chanti Boli Ramayya

S/o Vishnu Prasad,

Komarajunlanka,

Ravulapalem,

E.G. Dist – 533238.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry.

… Respondent

3672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri V.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 11/2014-IR(M) dated 12.5.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the removal from service of Sri N. Chanti Boli Ramayya, Ex.Temp. Class –IV, LIC of India,

Ravulapalem Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is

entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 91/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Respondent present. Record

reveals that Petitioner is not appearing in this case since September, 2016. It seems that Petitioner is not interested to

pursue his case. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not choose to file claim statement. Hence, a

‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 21^st day of

August, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1658.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

दिव्य जसजलका माइंस एवं जमनरल्स; मेससड साईं बाबा जसजलका माइंस के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्री एन. प्रभाकर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-6/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023- आईआर(एम)-63]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 6/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Divya Silica

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3673

Mines & Minerals; M/s Sai Baba Silica Mines and Sri N. Prabhakar which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-63]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of August, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 6/2016

Between:

Sri N. Prabhakar,

S/o Penchalaiah,

R/o Chintavaram Village,

Ballavolu Post, Chillakuru Mandal,

S.P.S.R. Nellore District,

Andhra Pradesh.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. Sri Aruru Srinivasa Achary @

Divya Sennaiah,

Divya Silica Mines & Minerals,

Chintavaram Village,

Chillakuru Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Manager,

M/s Sai Baba Silica Mines,

Vellapalem Gram Panchayat & Village,

Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District,

Andhra Pradesh

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri D. Kasim Saheb, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s. Ch. Indra Sena Reddy, A. Narasimha & M. Ramadevi, Advocates

AWARD

Sri N. Prabhakar 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. Divya Silica Mines & Minerals,

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

Respondent did not file counter. Despite sufficient number of opportunities have been provided to him

Petitioner is not putting his presence since 2019 and also not adduced evidence. It thus becomes crystal clear that

the petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing his case and as such Petitioner’s case is dismissed. As such, a

‘No Claim’ award is passed.

3674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 23^rd day

of August, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1659.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

दिव्य जसजलका माइंस एवं जमनरल्स; मेससड साईं बाबा जसजलका माइंस के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री टी. ृोलज ा

के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.-5/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा

11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2023- आईआर(एम)-64]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 5/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Divya Silica Mines & Minerals; M/s Sai Baba Silica Mines and Sri T. Polaiah which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-64]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of August, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 5/2016

Between:

Sri T. Polaiah,

S/o Bhaskar,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3675

R/o Turpu Kanupuru Village,

Ballavolu Post, Chillakuru Mandal,

S.P.S.R. Nellore District,

Andhra Pradesh.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. Sri Aruru Srinivasa Achary @

Divya Sennaiah,

Divya Silica Mines & Minerals,

Chintavaram Village,

Chillakuru Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Manager,

M/s Sai Baba Silica Mines,

Vellapalem Gram Panchayat & Village,

Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District,

Andhra Pradesh

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri D. Kasim Saheb, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s. Ch. Indra Sena Reddy, A. Narasimha & M. Ramadevi, Advocates

AWARD

Sri T. Polaiah 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. Divya Silica Mines & Minerals,

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

Respondent did not file counter. Despite sufficient number of opportunities have been provided to him

Petitioner is not putting his presence since 2019 and also not adduced evidence. It thus becomes crystal clear that

the petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing his case and as such Petitioner’s case is dismissed. As such, a

‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 23^rd day

of August, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

3676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1660.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

दिव्य जसजलका माइंस एवं जमनरल्स; मेससड गा त्री जसजलका माइंस के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री टी. ृुट्टजय् ा के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-4/2016)

को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को

प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2023- आईआर(एम)-65]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 4/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Divya Silica Mines & Minerals; M/s Gayatri Silica Mines and Sri T. Puttaiah which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-65]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of August, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 4/2016

Between:

Sri T. Puttaiah,

S/o Lakshmaiah,

R/o Yeruru Village & Post,

Chillakuru Mandal,

S.P.S.R. Nellore District. Andhra Pradesh.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. Sri Aruru Srinivasa Achary @

Divya Sennaiah

Divya Silica Mines & Minerals,

Chintavaram Village,

Chillakuru Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Manager,

M/s. Gayatri Silica Mines,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3677

Toorpu Kanupur Gram Panchayat & Village,

Chillakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.A.P.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri D. Kasim Saheb, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s. Ch. Indra Sena Reddy, A. Narasimha & M. Ramadevi, Advocate

AWARD

Sri T. Puttaiah 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. Divya Silica Mines & Minerals,

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

Respondent did not file counter. Despite sufficient number of opportunities have been provided to him

Petitioner is not putting his presence since 2019. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not

interested in pursuing his case and as such Petitioner’s case is dismissed as not pressed. As such, a ‘No Claim’ award

is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 23^rd day

of August, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1661.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजड ा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और इन्सुरेंस एम्प्लॉईज़ ूजन न के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िडष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-11/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा

ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-17011/14/2012- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 11/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to LIC of India

and Insurance Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.10.2023.

[No. L-17011/14/2012-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

3678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18th day of September, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2013

Between:

The General Secretary,

Insurance Employees Union,

7-530, Godugupet,

Turlapati Vari Street,

Machilipatnam – 521001.

Krishna District, A.P.

….. Petitioner union

AND

The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

Near Lord Satyannarayana Swamy Temple,

Kavali – 524201. Nellore Dist. AP

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Sarosh Batsawala, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17011/14/2012-IR(M) dated 20/12/2012

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of LIC of India and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Insurance Employees Union, Machilipatnam to regularize the service of

S/Shri P. Ch. Siddalingeswar, M. Masthan Babu, G. Mallikarjun, A. Subrahmanyam and K. Niranjan as

Peons in the LIC of India, Kavali, Nellore District, is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

This dispute pertains to the aggrieved workmen of LIC of India-Machilipatnam and Nellore Divisions who have been

working for periods in excess of 6 years, mainly as peons in offices of LIC of India and designated differently using

different nomenclatures by LIC of India and remunerated sometimes in their own names and mostly using fictitious

names, so as to deny them the benefits of leave, PF, ESI etc., and also to prevent them from seeking permanent

employment in LIC of India. They are made to work for years together receiving remuneration which was not even

the minimum wage. It is submitted that due to fear of loss of livelihood, many of the workmen coming of poorest

strata of the Society and belonging to SC/ST/OBC continued to work for years together with the hope that some day

they would receive justice and a permanent place in LIC of India. Earlier, National Industrial Tribunal NTB-1 of

1985, NTB-1 of 1987 gone through this problem and passed awards. The Union have taken the cause of these

workmen even before the Supreme Court, in CA 953-968 of 2005 through our representations to Zonal Authorities

dated 13^th April, 2009 and 10^th July, 2010. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed an order on 18^th January,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3679

2011 in Civil Appeal Numbers 953-968 of 2005 based on a Scheme put forth before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

by LIC of India. This Scheme envisaged giving appointment to workmen based on a one time Special Examination

and Interview. LIC of India framed rules and issued instructions for implementation of the Order of Supreme Court

dated 18^th January, 2011 and 20^th May, 2011. These rules were left for implementation to the mercy and discretion

of several Appointing Authorities in each division of LIC of India. It is submitted that in some Divisions authorities

issued service certificates to workmen who received emoluments in different/fictitious names, whereas in some other

Divisions such workmen were refused to enter into the process of recruitment. Petitioner Union raised an Industrial

Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) who conducted Conciliation Proceedings in July, 2012.

The Conciliation ended in a failure. Consequently Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment referred

this matter to this Hon’ble Tribunal. As a result of union’s representation to Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)

these workmen were paid wages according to Minimum Wages Act, 1948 from August, 2011 only. Now they are

receiving wages in their own name also. The independent investigations made by Assistant Labour

Commissioner(Central) and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(Central) bear testimony to the fact that the workmen

were remunerated in fictitious names earlier, resulting in denial of opportunity to enter the process of recruitment

envisaged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18^th January, 2011 in CA 953-968 of 2005. The Category of workmen

whose cause we champion are certainly governed under the Supreme Court order but were prevented to enter the

process of recruitment as a result of unfair labour practice of remunerating the workmen under different/fictitious

names. This unfair labour practice is unearthed by the Central Labour Authorities. The names and details of the

workmen and also their ID numbers are enclosed as Annexure. Now the Zonal Office of LIC of India, Hyderabad

has issued instructions to Divisional Offices to Terminate/remove all these workmen. These instructions are issued

after the issue of the orders of Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 18^th December, 2012 and clearly attract the

provisions of Section 33A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, it is prayed to stop LIC of India from going

ahead with this plan. Further, it is prayed that the practice of remunerating Temporary Workmen with false names

was being followed in 1980s, 1990s and up to 2011 also. This matter received the consideration of earlier NITs. It is

submitted that extracts from the Award of Justice Jamdar referred above, indicates the unfair labour practice of

employing persons on temporary basis and remunerating them under false/fictitious names. This practice was of

LIC's creation and much earlier to the present order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CA 953-968 of 2005,

Dt.18.1.2011. It is submitted that this practice of LIC be put to an end and Respondent be directed to continue all

these workmen in employment and make them permanent. Petitioner union be allowed to file material/information

as supplement to this statement as additional claim. Therefore, it is prayed to direct LIC of India and their

Authorities to continue these workmen in employment at their respective places of work and restrain LIC from doing

anything adverse in the matter. It is further prayed to absorb these workmen in permanent posts by conducting a

separate test.

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is submitted that the present ID is not just and sustainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is

submitted that the present ID is not maintainable, as the present petitioner, who is represented by the Union already

approached the Hon'ble AP High Court prior to filing of the subject matter/ I.D. and the same is liable to be

dismissed. It is submitted that, the petitioners/workmen are not contract sub staff and no temporary appointment

letter was given to the petitioners, but they worked on daily wage basis whenever there was work. It is submitted that

the respondent Corporation has announced for Recruitment of Peons vide Notification dated 20.5.2011 as per the

directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA Nos.953-968 of 2005 of DV Anil Kumar and Others Vs. LIC of India.

Respondent has followed the instructions specified in the Notification and all the candidates who satisfied all the

eligibility criteria were allowed to attend the One-Time Written Examination held on 26.6.2011. It was also specified

in the Notification that the onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof at the time of submission of application

shall be on the candidate. It is further submitted that there has been no instance of any case where this Division of

LIC being questioned, before any court of law. All the candidates who have submitted their applications along with

all necessary proofs of eligibility were allowed for the test. It is submitted that it is not correct that the Petitioners are

drawing meagre salaries in fictitious names. It is submitted that there were no complaints till date regarding non-

receipt of wages by any of the daily wager, which shows the prompt and systematic payment of wages to daily

wagers. The amount paid per day for a person who was engaged as a daily wager is paid according to the Law and

respondent Corporation is following the procedure laid down in this regard. Due to the pendency of recruitment in

Peon cadre, respondent Corporation have been engaging daily wagers, mostly for attending peon duties, as per the

requirement. It is also submitted that the Corporation did not deny the available chances of the daily wagers as per

their entitlements. Respondent Corporation has been following the instructions given by Competent Authority of the

Corporation regarding the engagement of daily wagers. It is submitted that no unlawful action was taken by

respondent Corporation in engaging the daily wage workmen. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,

while disposing of the Civil Appeals No.953-968, issued Orders to LIC of India, that, as a one time measure, to

recruit all the eligible Temporary Employees under Class IV cadre, who are working in LIC of India for more than

5 years as on 18.1.2011 and who possess minimum eligible qualifications and age at the relevant time of their entry

into LIC of India, by holding a limited written examination (falling under Category A). It was also specified in the

Notification that the candidates falling under Category A, will have to submit copies of proof of their working with

3680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011. It was further specified that the onus of furnishing the

authentic documentary proof for the same at the time of submission of the application shall be on the candidate.

Further it was also clarified that Temporary Class IV Employees connotes Watchman, Sweeper, Hamal, Gardener,

Guest House Caretaker, Electrician, Plumber, Daily Wager, Temporary Part-Timer etc. LIC of India has scrupulously

followed these instructions and all the candidates who satisfied all the eligibility criteria were allowed to attend the

one time written examination held on 26.6.2011. It is further submitted that LIC of India (Employment of Temporary

Staff) Instructions, 1993 are separate set of instructions issued by Respondent corporation with regard to appointment

of staff on temporary basis. Corporation has not promulgated the issue of daily wagers along with that of temporary

staff. It is submitted that the Corporation have not engaged any workmen on temporary basis since many years and

the Petitioners under this Petition are engaged only on daily wage basis. Since, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

while disposing the Civil Appeals issued orders to LIC of India, as a one time measure, to recruit all the eligible

temporary employees under Class IV Cadre, who possessed minimum eligible qualifications, the Corporation has

followed those instructions scrupulously. It is further submitted that the petitioners in the present ID are engaged by

respondent Corporation on daily wage basis and they are not found eligible to write the one time examination and

there is no unlawful method adopted in not allowing them to write the examination. It is submitted that the issue of

engaging workmen on daily wage basis was verified by various authorities, basing on the anonymous complaints

given by some persons, but no adverse reports were submitted to this respondents, which clearly show that there is no

misappropriation of funds of this respondent Corporation and this Corporation has been paying the wages to the daily

wagers very promptly and in the name as has been furnished by the daily wager himself. But, some daily wagers,

who were not qualified to appear for the written test, including the Petitioners, made complaints alleging about the

criminal activity of misappropriation of funds by Divisional Officials, after having worked without any problem. It

is submitted that the daily wagers are being paid a consolidated amount of Rs.270/- per day in C-Class cities which is

more than the rates suggested by the Regional Labour Commissioner. It is wrongly presented by the Petitioners that

they were paid wages. Since, the Petitioners were engaged only on daily wage basis (were not given appointment on

temporary basis), the wages paid to them cannot be paid from Salary Account. It is highly objectionable to state that

the Corporation Funds are misappropriated, without any valid proof. Every daily wager was aware of the fact that he

was engaged on daily wage basis and there is no provision in LIC of India to regularize or appoint the daily wager on

permanent basis. It is a baseless allegation to state that the Office is playing with the lives of the daily wagers. It is

further submitted that it is also highly objectionable to state that the LIC of India have succeeded in deceiving the

Hon’ble Courts and Constitutional Authorities and their baseless conclusions cannot be accepted. The Petitioners are

not competent enough to conclude that LIC of India is submitting false counter Affidavits before the Courts. At any

level respondent Corporation has not received any adverse reports either from CVC or CVO or CBI till date. There

is no specific salary account to respondent Corporation for Payment of daily wages to these daily wagers/badli

workers. Respondent Corporation has been following the prescribed method of payment of daily wages as per the

instructions of the Competent Authority from time to time. It is submitted that Petitioners engaged only on daily wage

basis but it was wrongly represented as on temporary basis. In case Appointments, a letter of appointment shall be

given only to workmen appointed on temporary basis and the remuneration paid shall be termed as Salaries and the

same shall be paid from Salaries Account. All the temporary appointments are made according to the LIC

(Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993. But, the petitioners were engaged only on daily wage basis

depending upon the requirement of Respondent Offices, they can not be issued the appointment letters and the

remuneration paid cannot be paid from Salaries Account. It is submitted that the applications of the candidates who

have submitted with all necessary documentary proof were considered by higher Office. The applicants were advised

to obtain their proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years as on 18.1.2011, from the concerned In-

Charges of the Branches in which they have worked. It is also specified in the Notification that the onus of obtaining

necessary proof shall lie with the candidate only. It may be reiterated that the records are maintained in the names of

the daily wagers, as furnished by the daily wager himself. The eligible candidates were considered only basing on the

documentary proofs submitted by the candidates. Since the daily wagers are not appointed on permanent basis, their

remuneration cannot be paid from Salaries Account. The payment to a daily wager shall be made after verifying the

name mentioned by the daily wager in the voucher with that of the name orally furnished by the daily wager at the

Cash Counter. Respondent follows a systematic procedure in making any payment, viz, one prepares the voucher,

the Supervisory Official checks the Voucher and the concerned Head of the Department passes the Voucher. No

single Official was continued to work for the same job of preparing the Vouchers or for checking and passing them

for the past 18 years, as has been alleged in the Petition. It is not correct that the Officials of the Corporation are

exploiting the daily wagers on payment of pittance in the name of wages. It is submitted that 35 candidates who are

working as daily wagers filed WP No:16063 of 2011 praying the Hon'ble High Court of AP to pass appropriate orders

to the respondent/LIC in not forwarding the applications of the petitioners and also not allowing them to appear for

the examination to be conducted on 26.6.2011. After hearing the same the Hon'ble High Court disposed the Writ with

a direction that is, if the petitioners fulfill the conditions viz., they are working in LIC as class IV employees for more

than five years as on 18.1.2011 and possess minimum eligible qualification, age, their applications shall be forwarded

to the authorities concerned and take appropriate decision by the second respondent/SDM DO Machilipatnam in

accordance with the records maintained by them with due diligence. As the above said Writ petitioners are not found

eligible they have not appeared for the written examination. There after the said writ petitioners filed a CC

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3681

No:951/2011 against the orders dt. 15.6.2011 against the respondent Corporation with a prayer to punish the

respondent for the alleged violation of the order dt.15.6.2011 passed in WP No.16063 of 2011 and to that effect a

detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Corporation stating that the petitioners did not actually work for

more than five years as on 18.1.2011, and therefore there was no willful disobedience of the orders and the Hon'ble

High Court came to the conclusion and the contempt case was dismissed without costs. It is submitted that having

every knowledge that the petitioners are working as daily wagers they are seeking all remedies before the court of law

and the litigation is unwarranted. It is submitted that the petitioners under the ID are working as daily wagers and

issuance of pay slips to the temporary workmen does not arise as they are not regular employees. Respondent

Corporation is maintaining the necessary records and paying the wages as per law to the petitioners herein in that

aspect there is no dispute. It is submitted that there is no obstinate stand taken by the respondent Corporation and the

Writ petition No:16063/2011 and the CC No:951/2011 passed by the Hon.ble High Court and the respondent

Corporation has taken proper steps in identifying the eligible candidates and the eligible candidates were appointed as

per their entitlement and all other allegations are denied. It is submitted that the temporary workmen those who are

appointed as per LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions 1993 dt.28.6.1993, but no workmen

under class IV cadre were appointed as Temporary workmen for the past several years in Machilipatnam Division.

Daily wage workers are engaged, as per the requirement of the offices. Appointment letters shall be given only to

those workmen who are appointed on Temporary Basis and no such letters shall be issued to Daily Wagers.

Moreover, remuneration shall be paid to the Daily Wage workers for the services rendered by them and such payment

shall not be treated as Salaries and cannot be paid through Salary Account. It is submitted that there are no

instructions in LIC of India to regularize or to absorb a temporary workman or a daily wager, for whatever period

they have worked. It is further clarified in our LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, under Regulation.8(2) that no

person appointed as temporary workmen shall by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service

of the Corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post. The scope of the case referred to by the Petitioners

under the Orders of CGIT, New Delhi, in ID No.27 of 1991 dt.18.6.2001, that temporary employee who completes 85

days of service has to be absorbed by the Corporation, is limited only to that particular specific case and the same

cannot be applied to all the other cases. The respondent Corporation is following the systems and procedures specified

in the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations and specific instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time. It is

submitted that the CC 951 of 2011 was dismissed by the Hon.ble High Court against the Respondent Corporation

with a clear observation that there are no disobedience of orders passed in WP No:16063 of 2011. Making repeated

allegations against the same subject matter before the different courts is nothing but abuse of the legal machinery. It

is further submitted that the petitioners represented by their union secretary filed Public Interest Litigation PIL

No:494/2013 before the Hon.ble High Court against the same subject matter, which is disposed on 9.12.2013 in view

of the dismissal order passed in WP 19445/2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of AP. A copy of the order passed in PIL

No:494/2013 and a copy of the Order passed in WP No.19445/2011 are also filed. It is also Submitted that the

petitioner has filed a WP No.37210/2013 on 9.12.2013 for with the same prayer. It is submitted that as per the

procedure there is no such practice of issuing of ID numbers to the daily wagers. It is submitted that as per regulation

No:33 of ID Act which deals with the conditions of the service etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances

during the pendency of the dispute. The subject dispute under ID Act was said to be filed on 10.1.2013 where as the

Hon'ble Apex Court has issued its orders dt.18.1.2011 regarding the appointment of eligible candidates as class IV

employees and also removal of ineligible candidates which includes these daily wagers. All the subsequent acts of

removal of these daily wagers are only the acts of implementing the Hon’ble Apex court order on the instructions of

the Corporation. Hence the allegation of removal of the daily wagers was not given during the pendency of the

dispute but only on the observation of the Hon.ble Apex Court which is given as under:

"Such of those temporary employees who do not apply and or not successful shall cease to be in the employment. It is

clarified that those temporary persons, who are not governed under these submissions, shall also cease to be in the

employment." It is submitted that all the daily wagers under Machilipatnam Division are removed as per the Apex

court order in the month of January 2013 out of them, some of the daily wagers are again engaged in the month of

March 2013 due to the office exigencies. In the present ID Five persons were shown as daily wagers, and the

details of the daily wagers under the ID are as under:

(i) P.Ch. Siddalingeswar–Presently working in Kavali Branch Office

(ii)

M. Masthan Babu - Presently working in Kavali Branch Office

(iii) G. Mallikarjun - Presently working in Kavali Branch Office

(iv) A. Subrahmanyam - Presently working in Kavali Branch Office

(v) K. Niranjan - Presently working in Kavali Branch Office

It is submitted that in the circumstances the daily wagers who are being represented by their union are only engaged

on daily wage basis and they are not appointed on Temporary basis and they are aware of their engagement at the time

of their engagement itself. It is further submitted that the daily wagers are not permanent employees of the

3682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Corporation. It is further submitted that there is no cause of action for the present petition. Hence, the present

petition is not maintainable as devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Petitioner union examined Sri P.Ch. Siddalingeswar as WW1. The witness got marked Photostat copies of

ten documents which were marked as Ex.W1 to W10. Respondent examined Sri C. Madhusudhan as MW1 and

Management witness marked Photostat copy of letter dated 26.12.2012 of the Respondent organization as Ex.W11.

Perused written arguments filed by both parties.

Although Petitioner union has taken number of pleas in their claim statement but the question regarding

regularization of workmen has been referred through the reference for adjudication in the present matter. Therefore,

we are confined to adjudicate the issue of regularization of workmen in the present matter.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for determination:-

Whether the workmen are entitled for regularization or absorption in the employment of LIC of India on

permanent basis as alleged in the claim statement?

To what relief the workmen are entitled?

FINDINGS:-

Point No.I: In order to prove and fortify the version of workmen WW1 has been examined in evidence.

WW1 in his testimony claimed that he along with other workmen had worked with Respondent LIC of India for more

than 11 years and Respondent designated them differently using different nomenclatures and some times using

fictitious names so as to deny him the benefit of leaves, PF, ESI etc., and also to prevent him from seeking permanent

employment in LIC of India. They made him to work for years together received remuneration which was not even

the minimum wages. For the fear of loss of work, the workmen did not protest with the hope that some day they

would receive justice and permanent place in the LIC of India. WW1 further testify that Hon’ble Apex Court passed

an order on 18.1.2011 in C.A. No. 953-968/2005. Hon’ble Apex Court has approved the scheme submitted by LIC of

India for regularization of temporary employees. The scheme envisages one time Special Examination and

interview to regularize the temporary employees as per eligibility criteria. Therefore, LIC of India framed rules and

issued instructions for implementation of the Order of Supreme Court. These rules were left for implementation to

the mercy and discretion of several Appointing Authorities in each division of LIC of India. In some Divisions

authorities issued service certificates to workmen who received emoluments in different/fictitious names, whereas in

some other Divisions such workmen were refused to enter into the process of recruitment because of chaotic situation

in 2011 and workmen denied opportunity seeking Permanent employment were forced to knock every door. The

Category of workmen whose cause Petitioner union were certainly governed under the Supreme Court order but were

prevented to enter the process of recruitment as a result of unfair labour practice of remunerating the workmen under

different/fictitious names. This unfair labour practice is unearthed by the Central Labour Authorities.

On the other hand, Respondent has refuted the said plea of the Petitioner union in his counter. He contended

that the Petitioners in the present petition are not appointed on a temporary basis but they were taken only on daily

wage basis. But it is wrongly represented in the petition that they have been working as temporary workmen. In

case of the temporary appointments, letter of appointment shall be given only to workmen appointed on temporary

basis and the remuneration paid shall be termed as salaries and the same shall be paid from Salaries Account. All the

temporary appointments are made according to the LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions,

1993. But the Petitioners under the petition were engaged only on daily wage basis depending upon requirement of

offices of Respondent and they can not be issued the appointment letters and the remuneration paid can not be paid

from salary account. Further it is contended that the Respondent corporation has scrupulously followed the orders

issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by disposing the C.A.No.953-968/2005 and followed the instructions

notified in the notification dated 20.5.2011 and the instructions issued by the Central Office. Further, it is contended

that, the applications of the candidates who have submitted with all necessary documentary proof were considered by

higher authority. Applicants were asked to obtain their proof of working with the Corporation for more than 5 years

as on 18.1.2011 from the concerned In-charges of the branches in which they have worked. It is also specified in

the notification that the onus of obtaining necessary proof shall lie with the candidates only. It is further contended

that the records are maintained in the names of the daily wagers, as furnished by the daily wager himself. The

eligible candidates were considered only basing on the documentary proofs submitted by the candidates. Since the

daily wagers are not appointed on temporary basis their remuneration can not be paid from salaries account and

payment is to be made after verifying the name mentioned by the daily wager in the voucher with that of the name

orally furnished by the daily wager at the cash counter. Respondent Management follow a systematic procedure in

making any payment i.e., one prepares the voucher, the Supervisory Official checks the voucher and the concerned

Head of the Department passes the voucher. No single official was continued to work for the same job of preparing

the vouchers or for checking and passing them for the past 18 years as has been alleged in the petition. It is also not

correct to state that officials of the corporation are exploiting the daily wagers on payment of pittance in the name of

wages. It is also contended that Petitioner under the ID are working as daily wager and issuance of pay slip to the

daily workers does not arise as they are not regular employees. In this context all other allegations are denied and

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3683

this Respondent Corporation is maintaining the necessary records and paying the wages as per law to the Petitioners

herein in that aspect there is no dispute.

10.

Before proceeding to examine the claim of workmen, it would be pertinent to look into direction of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India given in C.A. No.953-968/2005 vide judgement dated 18.1.2011, which has been

extracted as below:-

“One time limited examination for those of temporary persons who are working in LIC of India for more than five

years and who had possessed minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant time of their entry

into LIC India would be considered. For this purpose, LIC of India will hold a limited written examination which will

be in the vernacular language with a limited syllabus which will be announced in advance.



The successful short listed candidates shall be called for the interview. Such of those persons who are

successful in the interview shall be initially appointed and posted anywhere in the respective zone.



Such of those temporary employees who do not apply and or not successful shall cease to be in the

employment. It is clarified that those temporary persons who are not governed under these submissions, shall

also cease to be in the employment.



Those who are recruited shall be governed by the rules as applicable to Class IV employees and they shall

not be entitled to claim any other benefit regarding their past service rendered as temporary employees.



In so far as open market candidates who had appeared in the written test at the relevant time and who were

successful in the same shall be called for interview along with temporary employees. Such of those persons

who shall be successful in the interview shall be offered appointment and the conditions as applicable to

temporary persons in so far as offer of appointment shall be applicable to the open market persons as well.”

11.

In the present matter workmen in this case claims that they are eligible to appear in the examination as per

guidelines fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. No, 953-968/2005 but their candidatures were ignored for

the written examination held on 26.6.2011. Actually they were in the Corporation but the authorities have been

paying wages by affixing their signatures in others’ dummy names.

12.

On the other hand, Respondent witness MW1 has contended that the Petitioners in dispute are daily wage

earners, they were on daily wage basis, whenever there was work which was in contingent nature. They are paid

wages as per Minimum Wages Act. They are not appointed as contract Sub-staff or to any Class.IV posts nor

appointed on temporary basis. The persons are engaged by the Respondent on need basis to do miscellaneous jobs

who are available in local area. The persons in dispute who are not eligible to appear in the one time examination,

resorted to make false allegations stating that the wages were paid to them on dummy and fictitious names. MW1

further states when the appointments are regulated by Statutory Rules, the concept of Industry to that extent stands

excluded. Petitioners are not appointed to any post in accordance with rules. Further, MW1 states that, one time

limited examination for those temporary persons who are working in LIC of India for more than 5 years and possess

minimum educational qualifications, who possess minimum eligible qualifications and age as prescribed at the

relevant time of their entry into the LIC of India, such of those temporary employees who do not apply or not

successful in the examination shall cease to be in the employment, including those temporary persons who are not

governed under these conditions, shall also cease to be in the employment.

13.

It is also stated that workmen were asked to obtain the proof of working with LIC of India for more than five

years as on 18.1.2011 from the concerned Incharge of branches in which they had worked. It was also specified in the

notification that onus of obtaining necessary proof of employment lies upon candidates. The eligible candidates were

considered only basing upon the proof submitted by them. But as per the instruction issued, the workmen in the

present matter did not submit the proof of five years work with the Corporation, hence, their candidatures were not

considered. However, as regards the allegation of discrimination and malpractice in the said examination/event the

workmen approached the Hon’ble High Court through writ and Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the said

petition as found baseless and without substance. Therefore, in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in CA No.953-968/2005, LIC of India has conducted one time examination for regularization of the temporary

employees who possess eligibility criteria of more than five years service with the LIC of India.

14.

Whereas on the other hand, WW1 in chief examination has reiterated and supported the version as stated in

the claim statement but in the cross examination he states that, “I have not filed any identity card in this case in

support of proof of my identity. The Respondent has not issued any identity card to me. This dispute has been filed

by our union being represented by its General Secretary. I am deposing in this case in my personal capacity being

one of the workmen. The Petitioner union has not given any authorization to me to adduce evidence in this case.” In

the present matter, claim statement has been filed on behalf of the Insurance Employees Union represented by its

General Secretary, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, but the witness states that he has no authorization from union to

depose in the case and he is giving statement in his personal capacity. Thus, the claim of the Petitioner union in this

matter can not be said to be proved by evidence of WW1. Further, WW1states, “No appointment is given to me

3684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

pursuant to my application. I know Respondent Corporation is a Government organization and their recruitment

process for appointment of the staff. I have taken as a casual labour by the Respondents organization. At the time of

necessity I had been engaged as a casual labour and continued to work.” Further, witness WW1 states that, “Even

though I had worked under the Respondent Management but directly money was not paid to me and money had been

paid in some others name but I used to put my signature on the voucher.” Workmen claim that they were eligible to

appear in the one time examination held by the LIC of India in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court,

but they have not filed nay appointment letter issued by Respondent nor has produced identity cards to prove their

appointment as temporary workmen further they failed to produce the document of more than five years service with

LIC of India as a temporary employee as well as eligible to appear in one time examination for regularization. Thus,

the claim of the workmen that they are temporary employees and having more than 5 years service with the LIC of

India is not held proved. Further WW1 admitted in his cross examination that he had worked with the LIC of India as

daily wager whereas the policy for regularization scheme was meant for temporary employees who has been

appointed under Temporary Employees Recruitment Rules, 1987 of LIC of India. Therefore, it is clear that the

appointment of workmen was not made in the LIC of India under any rule or statute. Secondly, the workmen had

not produced any proof of temporary service for more than five years with LIC of India and did not fulfill the criteria

of eligibility as per instruction. The burden of proof to prove the eligibility for one time examination for

regularization rest upon the workmen. He should have produced the evidence of payment of wages to them for five

years or identity card or appointment letter but none of these was produced. Thus, he failed to discharge his burden

of proof in this regard. Further, WW1 has no where stated that his initial appointment was made by competent

authority and his appointment was made against the sanctioned post on which he was working as a temporary

employee/daily wager. The other relevant proof of employment is payment of salary, to the workman by LIC of

India. But WW1 states that wages were not paid to them directly and it was paid in dummy fictitious names. While

the WW1 himself admitted in cross examination that he had no personal knowledge about the allegation made

against the Respondent Management, the allegation made against the Respondent in this regard in claim statement

not stands proved by evidence of WW1. Further, WW1 admits that, “he had worked as casual labour with the

Respondent organization at the time of necessity and he had been engaged as a casual labour and continued to work.

Thus, it manifests from the above that workman has not worked continuously for more than five years as a

temporary employee, thus he was not found eligible for appearing in one time examination, for regularization.

15.

Further, WW1 states that he was not paid wages directly but the wages were paid in some other’s name and

he used to put his signature on voucher. First of all the workman claimed to have worked with the LIC of India for

more than six years as a daily wager and getting the wages payment regularly from employer, i.e., LIC of India. But

at no point of time while receiving wage he had raised the objection that he had worked for the whole period then

why he is being paid wages in other’s name or dummy name. No single piece of evidence is adduced by Petitioner

workman in this regard that he ever raised any objection or filed complaint against the LIC of India in the past in this

regard. However, Respondent has categorically refuted such allegation in his evidence. Thus, in such circumstances,

irresistible conclusion comes out that workman had not worked as a temporary employee against any sanctioned

post and he was not appointed by competent authority. It can not be ruled out that he must be receiving the payment

of wages in fictitious names, for some interest or the reasons best known to him. From the fore gone discussion this

is irresistible conclusion that workman had worked as daily wager in the Respondent Corporation only as the need

and exigency basis. Thus, the workman himself has committed wrong by receiving the wages in fictitious names

from LIC of India, therefore, he was not found eligible to appear in the one time examination scheme. As per settled

law the wrong doer can not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong committed by them. On this count, I

find no force in the claim of the workmen.

In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad & Anr. Vs. Employer

I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418/2014 dated 17.2.2014 is

relevant, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held.

“22. It is clear from the above that the Court emphasized the underline message contained in Umadevi's case to the

effect that regularization of a daily wager, which has not been appointed after undergoing the proper selection

procedure etc. is impermissible as it was violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and this principle predicated

on Art.14 would apply to the industrial tribunal as well inasmuch as there cannot be any direction to regularize the

services of a workman in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. As we would explain hereinafter, this would mean

that the industrial court would not issue a direction for regularizing the service of a daily wage worker in those cases

where such regularization would tantamount to infringing the provisions of Art.14 of the Constitution.

In the aforesaid circumstances giving of direction to regularize such a person, only on the basis of number of years

put in by such a worker as daily wager etc. may amount to backdoor entry into the service which is an anathema to

Art.14 of the Constitution. Further, such a direction would not be given when the concerned worker does not meet

the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the Recruitment Rules). However, wherever it is found that

similarly situated workmen are regularized by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3685

in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such

cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial

adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Art. 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision.”

Further, recently in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. The State of Madya Pradesh & Ors. In CA dated

8.2.2023 Hon’ble Apex Court have held,

“The appellant on the other hand, had set his claim for regularization as persons who were junior to him as daily

wagers were regularized in the year 1990 or even before. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition

gave directions for regularization of the appellant from the date on which his juniors were regularized. This order

was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench which allowed the appeal of the State Government.

The Division Bench rightly held that the learned Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as given by this

Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. V. Umadevi and Ors.', as initial appointment must be done by the

competent authority and there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working, These

two conditions were clearly missing in the case of the present appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court

therefore has to our mind rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27.06.2019.”

In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court workmen failed to prove their claim of eligibility criteria for

appearing in one time examination for regular employment of LIC of India. Moreover, as they were not appointed

against any sanctioned post by competent authority. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid

down by Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above, the claim set up by Petitioner workmen in the present case for

regularization is not acceptable for want of proof of their eligibility criteria as set up by the LIC of India and

approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CA No.953-968/2005.

Thus, Point No.I is decided accordingly.

16.

Point No.II: In view of the finding given in Point No. I, the workmen are not entitled to grant any relief

and hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly.

Result:

The demand of the workmen through Insurance Employees Union, Machilipatnam to regularize the service of

S/Shri P. Ch. Siddalingeswar, M. Masthan Babu, G. Mallikarjun, A. Subrahmanyam and K. Niranjan as Peons in the

LIC of India, Kavali, Nellore District, is neither legal nor justified. Therefore, workmen concerned are not entitled

to any relief as prayed for. Claim 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

day of September, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri P.Ch. Siddalingeswar

MW1: Sri C. Madhusudhan

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of report of ALC(C) to RLC(C) dt.2.2.2012

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of minutes of enquiry of ALC(C)

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of enquiry report of Dy. CLC(C) to CLC(C) 14.6.2012

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of CBI enquiry report dt. 3.5.2012

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of office noting of Central Vigilance Commission dt.26.2.2013

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of show cause notice of ALC(C) to LIC of India dt.15.5.2012

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C. A No.953-968/2005

Ex.W8:

Photostat copy of LIC of India Peon recruitment notification dt. 20.5.2011

Ex.W9:

Photostat copy of memorandum of M/o Finance dt. 11.9.2015

3686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 21, 2023/ASVINA 29, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W10:

Photostat copy of LIC of India counter affidavit in CC 951/2011.

Ex.W11:

Photostat copy of Lr. No.SCZO/P & IR/D III dated 26.12.2012

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1662.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , िजिराबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-9/2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[सं. एल-17011/18/2012- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 9/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to LIC of India

and Insurance Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.10.2023.

[No. L-17011/18/2012-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of September 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 9/2013

Between:

The General Secretary,

Insurance Employees Union,

7-530, Godugupet,

Turlapati Vari Street,

Machilipatnam – 521001.

Krishna District, A.P.

….. Petitioner union

AND

The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

City Branch-II, Laxshmipuram,

Guntur – 522007.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Sarosh Batsawala, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Venkatesh Dixit , Advocate

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 21, 2023/आज‍ वन 29, 1945

3687

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17011/18/2012-IR(M) dated 18/12/2012

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of LIC of India and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the Insurance Employees Union, Machilipatnam to regularize the service of S/Shri

B. Rambabu, B. Joseph Stalin, T. Adiseshu Sharma, Shaik. Subani, K. Praveen Kumar, D. Ravi Kumar, P.

Kanaka Raju, P. Sada Siva Rao and G. Bala Krishnaiah as Peons in the LIC of India, Guntur Branch Office,

is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 9/2013 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.