7133 GI/2023

(4087)

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. 47]

नई दिल् ली, नवम् बर 19—नवम् बर 25, 2023, िजनवार/कार्तिक 28—अग्रिायण 4, 1945

No. 47]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 19—NOVEMBER 25, 2023, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 28—AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945

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

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1775.—भारतीय ररिवि बैंक अजिजनयम, 1934 की िारा 8 की उृिारा (4) के सा ृर त िारा 8 की

उृ-िारा (1) के ंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री एम. रािेश्वर राव (िन् म

जतज 28.4.1961) को दिनांक 9.10.2023 से एक वर्ि की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो,

भारतीय ररिवि बैंक के उृ-गवनिर के ृि ृर ृुनर्नियुि करती िज।

[ई फा. सं. 1/1/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-05122023-250426

CG-DL-W-05122023-250426

4088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Department of Financial Services

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2023

S.O. 1775.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of The Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934, read with sub-section (4) of section 8 thereof, the Central Government hereby re-appoints

Shri M. Rajeshwar Rao (Date of Birth: 28.4.1961) as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of one

year with effect from 9.10.2023, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 1/1/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 5 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1776.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की िारा 20 की उृिारा (1) के सा

ृर त िारा 19 के ंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, श्री दिनेि कुमार ारा

(िन्म जतज : 28.8.1961), अध्यक्ष, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक के कायिकाल को दिनांक 6.10.2023 के उृरान्त उनके 63 वर्ि की

आयु प्राप्त करने तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज ।

[ई.फा.स.2/1/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2023

S.O. 1776.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of

section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby extends the term of

office of Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara (DoB: 28.8.1961), Chairman, State Bank of India beyond 06.10.2023 till he

attains the age of 63 years, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 2/1/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 5 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1777.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की िारा 20 की उृिारा (1) के सा

ृर त िारा 19 के ंड ( ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, श्री अजश्वनी कुमार

जतवारी (िन्म जतज : 29.12.1967), प्रबंि जनिेिक, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक के कायिकाल को दिनांक 27.1.2024 के उृरान्त

आगे िो वर्ि की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज ।

[ई.फा.स.2/1/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, dated 5th October, 2023

S.O. 1777.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of

section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby extends the term of

office of Shri Ashwini Kumar Tewari (DoB: 29.12.1967), Managing Director, State Bank of India for a period of two

years, beyond 27.1.2024, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 2/1/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4089

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1778.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र के

मिाप्रबंिक श्री संिय रुर (िन्म जतज िः 8.6.1966) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से अजिवर्र्िता की आयु प्राप्त करने

की तारी (अ ाित् दिनांक 30.6.2026) तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया में

कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/1(i)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1778.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Sanjay Rudra (DoB: 8.6.1966), General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra as Executive Director, Union Bank of

India with effect from the date of assumption of office and up to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation

(i.e., 30.6.2026), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(i)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1779.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के

मु्‍य मिाप्रबंिक श्री लाल ससंि (िन्म जतज िः 11.1.1967) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के

जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बैंक ऑफ बड़़ौिा में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(ii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, dated the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1779.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Lal Singh (DoB: 11.1.1967), Chief General Manager, Union Bank of India as Executive Director, Bank of

Baroda for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(ii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1780.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ृंिाब नजिनल बैंक के मु्‍य

मिाप्रबंिक श्री जबभु प्रसाि मिाृात्र (िन्म जतज िः 22.6.1966) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से अजिवर्र्िता की

आयु प्राप्त करने की तारी (अ ाित् दिनांक 30.6.2026) तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, ृंिाब नजिनल

बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(iii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

4090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1780.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Bibhu Prasad Mahapatra (DoB: 22.6.1966), Chief General Manager, Punjab National Bank as Executive

Director, Punjab National Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office, up to the date of his attaining the

age of superannuation (i.e. 30.6.2026), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(iii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1781.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के मु्‍य

मिाप्रबंिक श्री जिव बिरंग ससंि (िन्म जतज िः 1.3.1967) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के

जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, इंजडयन बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(iv)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1781.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Shiv Bajrang Singh (DoB: 1.3.1967), Chief General Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director, Indian Bank

for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(iv)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1782.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1980 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ृंिाब एण्ड ससंि बैंक के

मिाप्रबंिक श्री रजव मेिरा (िन्म जतज िः 26.12.1966) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए

अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, ृंिाब एण्ड ससंि बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(v)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1782.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Ravi Mehra (DoB: 26.12.1966), General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank as Executive Director, Punjab & Sind

Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(v)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4091

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1783.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा श्री स्ट्वप ृ िास गुप्ता के

स्ट् ान ृर यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के मु्‍य मिाप्रबंिक श्री रािीव जमश्र (िन्म जतज िः 5.2.1972) को दिनांक 1.3.2024

को या उसके ृश्चात् कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी

ृिले िो, बैंक ऑफ इंजडया में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(vi)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1783.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints Shri

Rajiv Mishra (DoB: 5.2.1972), Chief General Manager, Union Bank of India as Executive Director, Bank of India for

a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.3.2024, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier, vice Shri Swarup Dasgupta.

[eF. no. 4/1(vi)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1784.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, केनरा बैंक के मु्‍य

मिाप्रबंिक श्री भवेंर कुमार (िन्म जतज िः 3.10.1967) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए

अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, केनरा बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(vii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1784.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints Shri

Bhavendra Kumar (DoB: 3.10.1967), Chief General Manager, Canara Bank as Executive Director, Canara Bank for a

period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(vii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1785.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री इमरान अमीन जसद्दीकी

के स्ट् ान ृर बैंक ऑफ बड़़ौिा के मु्‍य मिाप्रबंिक श्री ब्रिेि कुमार ससंि (िन्म जतज िः 23.4.1969) को दिनांक

10.03.2024 को या उसके ृश्चात् कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों

तक, िो भी ृिले िो, इंजडयन बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(viii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

4092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1785.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh (DoB: 23.4.1969), Chief General Manager, Bank of Baroda as Executive Director, Indian

Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 10.3.2024, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier, vice Shri Imran Amin Siddiqui.

[eF. no. 4/1(viii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1786—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री बी. जविय कुमार ए. के

स्ट् ान ृर इंजडयन बैंक के मु्‍य मिाप्रबंिक श्री रोजित ऋजर् (िन्म जतज िः 4.4.1969) को दिनांक 1.11.2023 को या

उसके ृश्चात् कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो,

बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(ix)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1786.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Rohit Rishi (DoB: 4.4.1969), Chief General Manager, Indian Bank as Executive Director, Bank of Maharashtra

for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.11.2023, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier, vice Shri B. Vijay Kumar A.

[eF. no. 4/1(ix)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1787.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

मिाप्रबंिक श्री मिेंर िोिारे (िन्म जतज िः 24.2.1971) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए

अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, सेन्रल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(x)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1787.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Mahendra Dohare (DoB: 24.2.1971), Chief General Manager, Punjab National Bank as Executive Director,

Central Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(x)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4093

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1788—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, सुश्री एस. श्रीम ी के स्ट् ान

ृर इंजडयन बैंक के मु्‍य मिाप्रबंिक श्री िनराि टी. (िन्म जतज िः 20.5.1970) को दिनांक 10.3.2024 को या उसके

ृश्चात् कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, इंजडयन

ओवरसीज़ बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(xi)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1788.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Dhanaraj T. (DoB: 20.5.1970), Chief General Manager, Indian Bank as Executive Director, Indian Overseas

Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, on or after 10.3.2024, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier vice Ms. S. Srimathy.

[eF. no. 4/1(xi)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1789.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरन्तुक द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र के

मिाप्रबंिक श्री जविय कुमार जनवरुजत कांबले (िन्म जतज िः 5.3.1967) को कायिभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वर्ि

की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, यूको बैंक में कायिृालक जनिेिक के ृि ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 4/1(xii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023

S.O. 1789.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Vijaykumar Nivrutti Kamble (DoB: 5.3.1967), General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra as Executive Director,

UCO Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[eF. no. 4/1(xii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 25 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1790.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड ( ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, सुश्री ऐनी िॉिि मजथ्यू के स्ट् ान ृर

श्री कार्तिकेय जमश्र (जनिेिक, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आिेिों तक इंजडयन ओवरसीि बैंक के बोडि में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 6/2/2022-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

4094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2023

S.O. 1790.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri

Kartikeya Misra (Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director

on the Board of Indian Overseas Bank,

with immediate effect and

until further orders, vice

Ms Annie George Mathew.

[eF. No. 6/2/2022-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 25 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1791.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड ( ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री सुजचन्र जमश्र के स्ट् ान ृर श्री

प्रिांत कुमार गोयल (संयुि सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आिेिों तक केनरा बैंक के बोडि में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 6/2/2022-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2023

S.O. 1791.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri

Parshant Kumar Goyal (Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of

Financial Services) as Director on the Board of Canara Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice

Shri Suchindra Misra.

[eF. No. 6/2/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 25 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1792.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ-िारा

(3) के ंड ( ) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री प्रिांत कुमार गोयल के स्ट् ान ृर

डॉ. अजभिीत फुकन (आर् िक सलािकार, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और

अगले आिेिों तक बैंक आफ मिाराष्ट्र के बोडि में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िज।

[ई फा.सं. 6/2/2022-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th October, 2023

S.O. 1792.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates

Dr. Abhijit Phukon (Economic Adviser to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of

Financial Services) as Director on the Board of Bank of Maharashtra, with immediate effect and until further orders,

vice Shri Parshant Kumar Goyal.

[eF. No. 6/2/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4095

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1793.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरंतुक द्वारा प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, श्री ए. एस. रािीव, प्रबंि

जनिेिक एवं मु्‍य कायिकारी अजिकारी (एमडी एंड सीईओ), बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र के कायिकाल को म़ौिूिा अजिसूजचत

कायािवजि िो 1.12.2023 को समाप्त िो रिी िज, से आगे उनकी अजिवर्र्िता की तारी , अ ाित् 31.5.2024 तक अ वा

अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/3/(i)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2023

S.O. 1793.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby extends

the term of office of Shri A.S. Rajeev, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (MD & CEO), Bank of

Maharashtra beyond his currently notified term which expires on 1.12.2023, till the date of his superannuation,

i.e., 31.5.2024, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/3 (i)/2023-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 नवम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1794.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अििन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उृ िारा

(3) के ंड (क) के ृरंतुक द्वारा प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, श्री मातम वेंकट राव

(एम. वी. राव), प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍य कायिकारी अजिकारी (एमडी एंड सीईओ), सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के कायिकाल को

म़ौिूिा अजिसूजचत कायािवजि िो 29.2.2024 को समाप्त िो रिी िज, से आगे उनकी अजिवर्र्िता की तारी , अ ाित्

31.7.2025 तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/3/(ii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2023

S.O. 1794.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of

the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby extends

the term of office of Shri Matam Venkata Rao (M. V. Rao), Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (MD &

CEO), Central Bank of India beyond his currently notified term which expires on 29.2.2024, till the date of his

superannuation, i.e., 31.7.2025, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/3 (ii)/2023-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

4096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जविेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1795.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास न्यूयॉकि मे^ेँ िांतनु िमाि, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को

दिनांक नवम्बर 10, 2023 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के त़ौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनविन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती

िज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/1/2023(36)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 10th November, 2023

S.O. 1795.—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 Shantanu Sharma,

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

Consular services with effect from November 10, 2023.

[F. No.T.4330/01/2023(36)]

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

नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1796.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, ृ ि मे^ेँ भारती सांगवान, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को

दिनांक नवम्बर 16, 2023 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के त़ौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनविन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती

िज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/1/2023(37)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2023

S.O. 1796.—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 Smt. Bharti Sangwan,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Consulate General of India, Perth to perform the

Consular services with effect from November 16, 2023.

[F. No.T.4330/01/2023(37)]

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

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4097

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई दिल् ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1797.—केन् रीय सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन साविजनक क्षेत्र के

उृक्रम के जनम् नजलज त कायािलयों को, जिनके 80 या अजिक प्रजतित कमिचारी वषन् ि ने जिन् िी का कायिसािक ञानान प्राप् त

कर जलया िज, अजिसूजचत करती िज:-

भुबनेश्वर टर्मिनल,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,

(जवृणन प्रभाग), चंघाररया, िटनी, ओजडिा

ृारािीृ ररफाइनरी समन्वय कायािलय,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,

(जवृणन प्रभाग), िगतससंघृुर, ओजडिा

[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.]

िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उृ जनिेिक (रािभार्ा)

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2023

S.O. 1797.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector undertaking

under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff

have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-

Bhubaneswar Terminal,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

(Marketing Division), Changhariya, Jatni, Odisha

Paradip Refinery Coordination Office,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

(Marketing Division), Jagatsinghpur, Odisha

[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL]

SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)

नई दिल् ली, 30 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1798.—केन् रीय सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

उृक्रम के जनम् नजलज त कायािलय को, जिसके 80 या अजिक प्रजतित कमिचारी वषन् ि ने जिन् िी का कायिसािक ञानान प्राप् त कर

जलया िज, अजिसूजचत करती िज:-

एलृीिी संयंत्र एवं प्रािेजिक कायािलय,

रायगंि, ृाजणिालािाट, जिला-उत् तर दिनािृुर

ृज‍ चम बंगाल-733134

[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.]

िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उृ जनिेिक (रािभार्ा)

4098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2023

S.O. 1798.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector undertaking

under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more percent of the staff

have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-

LPG Plant & Territory Office,

Panishalahat Raiganj,

Uttar Dinajpur

(W. B. - 733134)

[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL]

SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1799.—भारत सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके ृश्चात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 3 दक उृिारा (1) के

अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना सं्‍या का. आ. 2157(ई) तारी

04.05.2023 िो भारत के असािारण रािृत्र तारी 10.05.2023 मे प्रकाजित की गई ी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से

संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम में मजससि इंरिनुर् गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में गुवािाटी - जिलांग - जसलचर -

ृानीसागर प्रकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन के मिायम से प्रकषजतक गजस के ृररविन के जलए ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के

जलए उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आिय की घोर्णा की ी;

और उि रािृजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयाेँ िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी गई ी;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेृों को ृरीक्षण के उृरांत जनृटान कर दिया िज;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृ - िारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अृनी

ररृोटि िे िी िज;

और भारत सरकार ने, उि ररृोटि ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने ृर दक उि भूजम

ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए अृेजक्षत िज, उसमें उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िज;

अतिः अब, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये,

यि घोर्णा करती िज दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम में ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए उृयोग के

अजिकार का अििन दकया िाता िज;

और भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उृिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यि

जनिेि िेती िज दक ृाइृलाइने जबछाने के जलए भूजम मे उृयोग के अजिकार, इस घोर्णा के प्रकािन की तारी को, भारत

सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाय, ृाइृलाइन जबछाने का प्रस्ट्ताव करने वाली मजससि इंरिनुर् गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड में जनजित

िोगा और तिुृरर, भूजम में ऐसे उृयोग का अजिकार, इस प्रकार अजिरोजृत जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुये, सभी

जवलंगमों से मुि, मजससि इंरिनुर् गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4099

अनुसूची

जिला :कछार

राज्य: असम

सकिल

तिसील

गाेँव

िाग नं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेअर

आर

वगि मीटर.

काजतगोराि

भांगरृार-III

205

131

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

188

189

190

191

4100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

179

172

171

173

174

160

159

157

154

215

153

216

249

काजतगोराि

भांगरृार-V

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4101

232

283

301

253

[फा. सं. एल- 14014-249-2022-िीृी-II (ई– 45396)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1799.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O.No.2157(E) dated the 04.05.2023 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 10.05.2023, the Government of India declared its intention

to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of

laying pipeline for transportation of Natural Gas through Guwahati - Shillong - Silchar - Panisagar Section of North -

East Natural Gas Pipeline in the state of Assam by Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).

And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public.

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and

disposed by the Competent Authority.

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted its

report to the Government of India.

And whereas the Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the

Government of India hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

4102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting

in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited

(IGGL), free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

District:- Cachar

State :- Assam

Circle

Tahsil

Name of the

Village/ Mouza

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Katigorah

Bhangerpar Pt-3

205

131

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

188

189

190

191

192

193

179

172

171

173

174

160

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4103

159

157

154

215

153

216

249

Katigorah

Bhangerpar Pt-5

232

283

301

253

[F. No. L-14014-249-2022-GP-II(E–45396)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

4104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1800.—भारत सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना सं्‍या का. आ. 2159(अ) तारी

संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम में मजससि इंरिनुर् गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड द्वारा असम राज्य में गुवािाटी – नुमालीगढ प्रकषजतक

गजस ृाइृलाइन के मिायम से प्रकषजतक गजस के ृररविन के जलए ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उृयोग के

अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आिय की घोर्णा की ी;

और उि रािृजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयाेँ िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी गई ी;

ररृोटि िे िी िज;

अजिकार का अििन दकया िाता िज;

जवलंगमों से मुि, मजससि इंरिनुर् गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।

अनुसूची

जिला : मािुली राज्य : असम

सकिल

म़ौज़ा

गाेँव

िाग नं

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेअर

आर

वगि मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

कमलाबारी

एन.सी.

जिला : ल ीमृुर

राज्य : असम

सकिल

म़ौज़ा

गाेँव

िाग नं

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेअर

आर

वगि मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

उत्तर ल ीमृुर

तेलािी

एन.सी.

[फा. सं. एल–14014 – 251–2022 – िीृी– II(ई – 45398)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4105

New Delhi, the 9th November, 20232023

S.O. 1800.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O.No.2159(E) dated 04.05.2023, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 10.05.2023, the Government of India declared its intention

to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of

laying pipeline for transportation of Natural Gas through Guwahati-Numaligarh Gas Pipeline in the state of Assam by

Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).

And whereas copies of the said Extraordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public.

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and

disposed by the Competent Authority.

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted its

report to the Government of India.

And whereas the Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the said Act, the

Government of India hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting

in Government of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited

(IGGL), free from all encumbrances.

District: Majuli

State: Assam

Circle

Mauza

Village

Dag No.

Area

Hec.

Arc

Sq.Mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Kamalabari

District: Lakhimpur

State: Assam

Circle

Mauza

Village

Dag No.

Area

Hec.

Arc

Sq.Mtr.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

North

Lakhimpur

Telahi

[F. No. L-14014-251-2022-GP-II) (E - 45398)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1801.—केन्रीय सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिजनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात उि अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 3 की उृ-िारा (1)

भारत के रािृत्र (असािारण) के अिीन िारी की गयी भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय की

अजिसूचना संख़्या का. आ 2290(अ), तारी 20 मई 2021 मे प्रकाजित की गई ी, द्वारा उि अजिसूचना से संलंग्न

अनुसूची मे जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम मे इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के द्वारा तजमलनाडू राज्य मे एन्नोर– जतरुवल्लूर –

बेंगलुरु – ृुिुचेरी– नागृरिनम – मिुरज – टूरटकोररन प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकषजतक गजस के

ृररविन के जलए ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आिय की घोर्णा

की ी।

4106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और उि अजिसूचना की प्रजतयाेँ िनता को तारी 27.01.2022 से उृलब्ि करा िी गई ी।

और उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृ - िारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने केन्रीय सरकार को

अृनी ररृोटि प्रस्ट्तुत कर िी िज।

और केन्रीय सरकार का उि ररृोटि ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात यि समािान िो गया िज दक इस अजिसूचना से

संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन दकया िाना चाजिए।

अत: अब, केन्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा(1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए

यि घोर्णा करती िज दक इस अजिसूचना के संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट उि भूजम में ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए उृयोग

का अजिकार अर्िित दकया िाता िज।

यि और दक केन्रीय सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा(4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते

हुए यि जनिेि िेती िज दक उि भूजम के उृयोग का अजिकार इस अजिसूचना के प्रकाि की तारी से केन्रीय सरकार में

जनजित िोने की बिाए, सभी रुकावटों से मुि िो कर इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा ।

ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 की िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतृूर्ति के जलए

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड ृूणितया उत्तरिायी िोगी और ृाइृलाइन से सम्बजन्ित दकसी भी मामले ृर केन्रीय

सरकार के जवरुद्ध कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायिवािी निीं िो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

जिला : कडलूर राज्य : तजमलनाडु

तालुका का नाम

गाेँव का नाम

सवेक्षण सं.- ण्ड सं.

उृ ण्ड

सं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेर

एयर

वगि मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

काट्टुमन्नारकोजवल

116. कंचनकोल्लज

203

6सी

203

6डी

203

9ए

199

1ए

199

1बी

199

1डी

199

1ई

199

3ए

199

3बी

199

8ए

199

8बी

199

8डी

काट्टुमन्नारकोजवल

116. कंचनकोल्लज

3ए1

3बी

4बी

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4107

1ए

1डी

6ए

2ई

188

187

186

185

235

253

[फा.सं. एल-14014-24-2021-िीृी-II(ई-47642)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1801.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas number S.O.No.2290(E) dated: 20.05.2021 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said

Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Lands specified in the Schedule

appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas, through

“Ennore- Thiruvallur -Bengaluru -Puducherry -Nagapattinam –Madurai- Tuticorin” Natural Gas Pipeline in the State

of Tamil Nadu by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from 27.01.2022

And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of User in

the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said Land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government,

vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the

P & M P Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

4108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District : Cuddalore State : Tamil Nadu

Taluk

Village

Survey No.

Sub

Division

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Kattumannarkoil

116. Kanjankollai

203

199

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Kattumannarkoil

116. Kanjankollai

3A1

188

187

186

185

235

253

[F. No. L-14014-24-2021-GP-II(E-47642)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1802.—केन्रीय सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

भारत के रािृत्र, (असािारण) के अिीन िारी की गयी भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय की

अजिसूचना संख़्या का. आ 97(अ), तारी 08 िनवरी 2021 मे प्रकजित की गई ी, द्ववारा उस अजिसुचना से संलंग्न

अनुसूची मे जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम मे इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वरा तजमल नाडू राज्य मे एन्नोर– जतरुवल्लूर – बेंगलुरु

– ृांजडचेरी – नागृरिनम – मिुरज – टूरटकोररन प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकषजतक गजस के ृररविन के

जलए ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आ‍य की घोर्णा की ी।

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4109

और उि आजिसूचना की प्रजतयाेँ िनता को तारी 15.07.2021 तक उृलब्ि कराई गई।

अृनी ररृोटि प्रस्ट्तुत कर िी िज।

अत: अब, केन्रीय सरकार,उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा(1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए

का अजिकार अर्िित दकया िाता िज।

सरकार के जवरुद्ध कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायिवािी निीं िो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

जिला : कल्लकुररजि

राज्य : तजमल नाडु

तालुका का नाम

गाेँव का नाम

सवेक्षण सं.- ण्ड सं.

उृ ण्ड

सं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेर

एयर

वगि

मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

कल्लकुररजि

123. कुंिलूर

127

उलुंिूृेट

51.आसनुर

372

[फा. सं. एल-14014-58-2020- िीृी- II(ई-47671)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1802.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas number S.O.No.97(E) dated: 08.01.2021 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said

Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Lands specified in the Schedule

appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas, through

“Ennore- Thiruvallur -Bengaluru -Pondicherry -Nagapattinam –Madurai- Tuticorin” Natural Gas Pipeline in the State

of Tamil Nadu by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public upto 15.07.2021.

And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of User in

the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

4110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said Land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government,

vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the

P & M P Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District : Kallakurichi

State : Tamil Nadu

Taluk

Village

Survey

No.

Sub

Division

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Kallakurichi

123.Kundalur

127

Ulundurpet

51.Asanur

372

[F.No. L-14014-58-2020-GP-II[E-47671]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1803.—केन्रीय सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिसूचना संख़्या का. आ 2297(अ), तारी 24 मई 2021 मे प्रकजित की गई ी, द्ववारा उस अजिसुचना से संलंग्न

अनुसूची मे जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम मे इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के द्वारा तजमलनाडू राज्य में एन्नोर– जतरुवल्लूर –

बेंगलुरु – ृुिुचेरी – नागृरिनम – मिुरज – टूरटकोररन प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकषजतक गजस के

की ी।

और उि आजिसूचना की प्रजतयाेँ िनता को तारी 05.07.2021 तक उृलब्ि कराई गई।

अृनी ररृोटि प्रस्ट्तुत कर िी िज।

अत: अब, केन्रीय सरकार,उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा(1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए

का अजिकार अर्िित दकया िाता िज।

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4111

सरकार के जवरुद्ध कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायिवािी निीं िो सकेगी।

[फा. सं. एल-14014-31-2021- िीृी- II(ई-47672)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1803.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natu

number S.O.No.2297(E) dated: 24.05.2021 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals P

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said Act) the

Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Lands specified in the Schedule appended

notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Natural Gas, through “Ennore- Tiru

Bengaluru -Pondicherry -Nagapattinam –Madurai- Tuticorin” Natural Gas Pipeline in the State of Tamil Nadu by

Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public upto 05.07.2021.

And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has su

his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of Use

Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the said Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notific

hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

अनुसूची

जिला :जवल्लुृुरम राज्य : तजमल नाडु

तालुका

गाेँवकानाम

सवेक्षणसं.- ण्डसं.

उृ ण्डसं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेर

एयर

वगिमीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

जतरुवेन्नजनल्लूर

161. मनकुप्ृम

177

1ए

177

1बी

177

जतरुवेन्नजनल्लूर

160. एलन्िूरई

121

11ए

121

10ए

121

9ए

121

9बी

121

10बी

125

4112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central

Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all

encumbrances.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of

the P & M P Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any

matter relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District : Villupuram State : Tamil Nadu

Taluk

Village

Survey No.

Sub

Division No.

Area

Hect

are

Are

Square Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Thiruvennainallur

161. Manakupp

177

Thiruvennainallur

160. Elandurai

121

11A

121

10A

121

10B

125

[F. No.L-14014-31-2021-GP-II(E-47672)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1804.—भारत सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात् उि अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) के

अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना सं्‍या का.आ. 299(अ) तारी

17.01.2022 िो भारत के असािारण रािृत्र तारी 24.01.2022, और िुजद्ध - ृत्र सं्‍या का.आ. 2374 (अ) तारी

01.06.2023 में प्रकाजित की गयी ी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम में गेल (इजण्डया)

जलजमटेड द्वारा मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में उरण – उसर प्रोृेन ृाइृलाइन के माध्यम से तरलीकषत प्रोृेन के ृररविन के जलए

ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आिय की घोर्णा की ी;

और उि रािृत्र अजिसूचना की प्रजतयां िनता को उृलब्ि करा िी गई ी;

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4113

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अृनी ररृोटि

िे िी िज;

और भारत सरकार ने, उि ररृोटि ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात् और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने ृर दक उि भूजम

ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए अृेजक्षत िज, उस में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िज;

अतिः अब, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

अजिकार का अििन दकया िाता िज;

और, भारत सरकार, उि अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उृिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

जनिेि िेती िज दक ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए भूजम में उृयोग का अजिकार, इस घोर्णा के प्रकािन की तारी से, भारत

सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर, गेल (इजण्डया) जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।

उरण – उसर प्रोृेन ृाईृ लाईन

अनुसूची

राज्य : मिाराष्ट्र

जिला

तिसील

गाेँव

स.नं.

क्षेत्र

िेक्टेयर

आर

वगि मीटर

रायगड

ृेण

कोृर

68/1

66/1

66/2

66/5

66/6

66/4

65/1

65/3

58/3

58/4

58/5

60/1

60/2

60/3

43/1

43/2

4114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

45/1

रायगड

ृेण

काने

175

59/2

59/4

60/3

60/2

63/1

69/1

68/1

68/2/4

68/3

68/5

68/6

67/8

72/1

72/2

74/2

91/1

92/1

88/2

88/4

88/6

88/7

87/1

84/2

84/4

84/3/5/अ

84/3/5/ब

110/1

110/3

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4115

जिला

तिसील

गाेँव

स.नं.

क्षेत्र

िेक्टेयर

आर

वगि मीटर

रायगड

उरण

िसा ोिी

5/2

5/1

26/2

26/1

25/1

[फा. सं. एल-14014/227/2021-िीृी-II(ई-41028 )]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1804.—Whereas by Notification of Government of India, in Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide

S.O.No 299 (E) dated 17.01.2022; issued under sub - section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of right of users in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the

Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 24.01.2022, & Corrigendum published on dated 01.06.2023, S.O. No. 2374(E)

pertaining to change of Village Name Ghasakhoshi to Dhasakhoshi. the Government of India declared its intention to

acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying

Pipeline for transportation of Liquid Propane through Uran – Usar Propane pipeline in the State of Maharashtra by

GAIL (India) Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered of by

the Competent Authority;

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub-section (1) of section (6) of the said Act, submitted its

report to Government of India;

And whereas Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land

is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section (6) of the said Act, the

Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to

this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the Section (6) of the said Act,

Government of India hereby directs the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in

Government of India, vest, on the this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free

from all encumbrances.

4116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

URAN – USAR PROPANE PIPE LINE

SCHEDULE

State : Maharashtra

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey

No.

Area

Hect.

Are.

Sq. Mtr.

RAIGAD

PEN

KOPAR

68/1

66/1

66/2

66/5

66/6

66/4

65/1

65/3

58/3

58/4

58/5

60/1

60/2

60/3

43/1

43/2

45/1

RAIGAD

PEN

KANE

175

59/2

59/4

60/3

60/2

63/1

69/1

68/1

68/2/4

68/3

68/5

68/6

67/8

72/1

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey

No.

Area

Hect.

Are.

Sq.

Mtr.

RAIGAD

PEN

KANE

72/2

74/2

91/1

92/1

88/2

88/4

88/6

88/7

87/1

84/2

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4117

84/4

84/3/5/A

84/3/5/B

110/1

110/3

URAN – USAR PROPANE PIPE LINE

SCHEDULE

State : Maharashtra

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey

No.

Area

Hect.

Are.

Sq.

Mtr.

RAIGAD

URAN

DHASAKHOSHI

5/2

5/1

26/2

26/1

25/1

[F. No. L-14014/ 227 /2021-GP-II(E- 41028)]

RAMJILAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1805.—ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में प्रयोिा के अजिकार का अििन) अजिजनयम,

1962 (1962 का 50) (इसमें इसके बाि उि अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 2 के ंड (क) के अनुसरण

में भारत सरकार एतिद्वारा, िररयाणा राज्य और राष्ट्रीय राििानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली में मेससि गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड की सभी

प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन ृररयोिनाओं के जलए ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में प्रयोिा के अजिकार का

अििन) अजिजनयम, 1962 के तित श्री मनबीर ससंि, जिला रािस्ट्व अजिकारी, गुरुग्राम, िररयाणा सरकार को, प्रजतजनयुजि

के आिार ृर, सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कायो का जनविन करने के जलये प्राजिकषत करती िज I

2. यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की जतज से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/86/2017-िीृी - II(ई-43031)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1805.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Government of India hereby

authorizes Shri Manbir Singh, District Revenue Officer, Gurugram, Government of Haryana to perform the functions

of Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,

1962, on deputation basis, for all Natural Gas Pipeline Projects of M/s GAIL (India) Limited in the State of Haryana

and National Capital Territory of Delhi.

2. This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. L-14014/86/2017-GP-II (E-43031)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

4118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 uoEcj] 2023

.—Hkkjr ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d çrhr gksrk gS fd

jkT; esa

ds ek/;e ls

çk—frd xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM }kjk] ,d ikbiykbZu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,A

vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d çrhr gksrk gS fd ml Hkwfe esa]

ftlesa mDr ikbiykbZu fcNk, tkus dk çLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/klwpuk es layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr gS] mi;ksx ds

vf/kdkj dk vtZu fd;k tk,A

vr% vc] Hkkjr ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962

¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnRr 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ml Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk

vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gSA

dksbZ O;fä] tks mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) gS] ml rkjh[k ls ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh

mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu Hkkjr ds jkti= esa ;Fkk çdkf'kr bl vf/klwpuk dh çfr;‚a lk/kkj.k turk dks miyC/k dj nh tkrh

gS] 21 fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbZu fcNk, tkus ds laca/k esa] l{ke çkf/kdkjh] xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM dks fyf[kr

:i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxkA

िगिीिृुर- िजल्िया- बोकारो- िामरा ृाइृलाइन (िे०एच०बी०डी०ृी०एल०) एवम स्ट्ृर ृाइृलाइन प्रोिेक्ट

िुगािृुर - िजल्िया, सेक्सन -3 बी

अनुसूची

राज्य - ृजश्चम बंगाल

1874/2587

[फा. सं. एल-14014/1/2023-िीृी-II)

(ई-45589)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1806.—Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of natural gas through Jagdishpur-Haldia & Bokaro-Dhamra Pipeline (JHBDPL) & Spur Pipeline,

in the State of West Bengal, a pipeline should be laid by GAIL (India) Limited;

And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby

declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the

Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited.

JAGDISHPUR-HALDIA-BOKARO-DHAMRA PIPELINE (JHBDPL) & SPUR PIPELINE PROJECT

DURGAPUR - HALDIA, SECTION -3B

Schedule

State: West Bengal

District

Block

Mouza

J.L.

No.

Map

Survey

No.

Area

Hect.

Are

Sq. mtr.

HOOGHLY

SINGUR

NOAPARA

1874/2587

[F.No.L-14014-1-2023-GP-II(E-45589)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4119

नई दिल् ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का. आ. 1807.—भारत सरकार को लो कजित में यि आव‍ यक प्रतीत िोता िज दक मिाराष्ट्र राज् य में उरण – उसर

ृाईृ लाईन, तरलीकषत प्रोृेन के ृररविन के जलए गेल (इजण्डया) जलजमटेड (भारत सरकार का उृक्रम) द्वारा, एक

ृाइृलाईन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;

और भारत सरकार को उक् त ृाइृलाईन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आव‍ यक प्रतीत िोता िज दक उस भूजम

में, जिसके नीचे उक् त ृाइृलाईन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट् ताव िज और िो इस अजिसूचना से संल‍ न अनुसूची में वर्णित िज,

उृयोग का अजिकार का अर्िित दकया िाना चाजिए।

अत: अब, भारत सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाईन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूजम में

उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आिय की घोर्णा करती िज;

कोई व् यजि, िो उक् त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूजम में जितबद्ध िज, रािृत्र में य ा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतय सािारण

िनता को उृलब् ि कराये िाने की तारी के, इक् कीस दिन के भी तर, भूजम के नीचे ृाइृलाईन जबछाने, उसमे उृयोग के

अजिकार के उृजिलाजिकारी एवं सक्षम प्राजिकारी, गेल (इजण्डया) जलजमटेड, गेल भवन, प्लॉट नं. 73, सजक्टर 15

सी।बी।डी। बेलाृुर नवीमुंबई 400614 को जलज त प ृ में आक्षेृ भेि सकेगा।

उरण – उसर प्रोृेन ृाईृलाईन

अनुसूची

राज्य : मिाराष्ट्र

जिला

तिसील

गाेँव

सव्िे नं./

िाग नं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेअर

आर

वगिमीटर

रायगड

उरण

िुई

129

रायगड

उरण

कळंबूसरे

95/1

रायगड

ृनवेल

दिघाटी

51/1/अ

रायगड

ृनवेल

साई

246/1

246/2

246/3

2/5

10/3

रायगड

ृेण

रावे

रायगड

ृेण

कोृर

45/3

4120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

45/5

41/1

40/1

40/2

39/1/ब

40/4

29/3

60/6

रायगड

ृेण

ओढांगी

202

जिला

तिसील

गाेँव

सव्िे नं./

िाग नं.

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेअर

आर

वगिमीटर

रायगड

अजलबाग

ििाबाि

487

491

987

667

900

901

[फा. सं. एल-14014/27 /2023 -िीृी-II (ई-47395]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1807.—Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of Liquid Propane through Uran - Usar Propane Pipe line, in the State of Maharashtra, a pipeline

should be laid by GAIL (India) Limited;

And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby

declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

of which the copies of the notification issued, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the

Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of Right of User therein

for laying of the pipeline under the land to Dy. Collector & Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited. GAIL

Bhawan, Plot No. 73, Sector 15, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4121

URAN – USAR PROPANE PIPE LINE

SCHEDULE

State: Maharashtra

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hect.

Are

Sq.

Mtr.

Raigad

Uran

Jui

129

Raigad

Uran

Kalambusare

95/1

Raigad

Panvel

Dighati

51/1/A

Raigad

Panvel

Sai

246/1

246/2

246/3

2/5

10/3

Raigad

Pen

Rave

Raigad

Pen

Kopar

45/3

45/5

41/1

40/1

40/2

39/1/B

40/4

29/3

60/6

Raigad

Pen

Odhangi

202

District

Tehsil

Village

Survey No.

Area

Hect.

Are

Sq. Mtr.

Raigad

Alibag

Shahabaj

487

491

987

667

900

901

[F. No. L-14014/27/2023-GP-II(E- 47395)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

4122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 9 नवम् बर, 2023

का. आ. 1808.—भारत सरकार को लोकजित मे यि आव‍यक प्रतीत िोता िज, दक ओजडिा राज्य मे मुंबई-

नागृुर-झारसुगुड़ा प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन (अनुभाग-नागृुर-झारसुगुड़ा) के माध्यम से प्राकषजतक गजस के ृररविन के

जलए गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड द्वारा एक ृाइृ लाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;

और भारत सरकार को उि ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आव‍यक प्रतीत िोता िे दक उस भूजम में,

जिसमे उि ृाइृ लाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िज और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित िज, उृयोग के

अजिकार का अििन दकया िाए;

अतिः अब, भारत सरकार, ृजरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूजम मे

उृयोग के अजिकार का अििन करने के अृने आिय की घोर्णा करती िज;

कोई व्यजि, िो उि अनुसूची मे वर्णित भूजम में जितबिि िज, उस तारर से जिसको उि अजिजनयम की िारा 3

की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािृत्र मे य ा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि कर

िी िाती िे, 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे ृाइृ लाइन जबछाए िाने की संबंि मे, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, ओजडिा राज्य,

मेससि गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड, 612, उत्कल जसग्नेचर, ृिला, एनएच-5, भुवनेश्वर-752101, ओजडिा को जलज त प ृ में

आक्षेृ भेि सकेगा |

मुंबई-नागृुर-झारसुगुड़ा प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन

अनुभाग- नागृुर-झारसुगुड़ा

अनुसूची

राज़्य - ओजडिा

जिला

तिसील

ग्राम

सवे नंबर.

अजिसूजचत

/ नये

क्षेत्रफल

अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र ग़ज़ट

सं्‍या 462 (अ) एवं

दिनाक 27 िनवरी,

2022 द्वारा

संिोजित क्षेत्रफल / नये

सवे नंबर का क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टर आर

वगि

मीटर

िेक्टर आर

वगि

मीटर

झारसुगुडा

ल नृुर

गोसवंिृुर

202

482

485

491

477

476

616

617

618

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4123

462

463

464

460

झारसुगुडा

ल नृुर

सागरृाली

446

झारसुगुडा

ल नृुर

बेलृिाड़

1832

1833

1834

1766

झारसुगुडा

ल नृुर

छुआिलबेरेणा

298

300

301

झारसुगुडा

तलृरटआ

853

[फा. सं. एल-14014/206/2022-िीृी-II(ई-44561)]

रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th November, 2023

S.O. 1808.—Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of natural gas through Mumbai – Nagpur – Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline (Nagpur- Jharsuguda

section), in the State of Odisha, a pipeline should be laid by GAIL (India) Limited;

And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby

declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date

of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the

Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, State of Odisha, M/s.GAIL (India) Limited,

612, Utkal Signature, Pahala, NH-5, Bhubaneswar-752101, Odisha.

Mumbai-Nagpur-Jharsuguda Natural Gas Pipeline

Section- Nagpur-Jharsuguda

LAND SCHEDULE

STATE: ODISHA

DISTRICT

TEHSIL

VILLAGE

SURVEY

NO.

NOTIFIED/

NEW

AREA

NOTIFIED AREA

vide Gazette no.462 (E)

Dated 27 January 2022

REVISED AREA /

AREA OF NEW

SURVEY SURVEY

NUMBER

HECT. ARE ^SQ.

MTR.

HECT. ARE ^SQ.

MTR.

Jharsuguda

Lakhanpur

Govindpur

202

482

4124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

485

491

477

476

616

617

618

462

463

464

460

Jharsuguda

Lakhanpur

Sagarpali

446

Jharsuguda

Lakhanpur

Belpahar

1832

1833

1834

1766

Jharsuguda

Lakhanpur

Chhualiberna

298

300

301

Jharsuguda

Talpatia

853

[F. No. L-14014-206-2022-GP-II(E-44561)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1809.—ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अजिग्रिण) अजिजनयम

1962 (1962 का 50), (इसके बाि उि अजिजनयम किा िाएगा) की िारा 2 की उृिारा (क) के अनुसरण में, केंर

सरकार उि अजिजनयम के अिीन नीचे िी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त व्यजि को कॉलम (2) में उजल्लज त

क्षेत्रों के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लज त इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के ृररचालन ृेरोजलयम ृाइृलाइनों के

जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कायों को करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

व्यजि का नाम एवं ृता

क्षेत्राजिकार क्षेत्र

ृेरोजलयम ृाइृलाइनों का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री िािीम एम.

मु्‍य प्रचालन प्रबंिक,

इंजडयनऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड

िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन, िेवनगों ी,

बैंगलोर, कनािटक

कनािटक राज्य

1. चेन्नई बेंगलुरु ृाइृलाइन सीबीृीएल)

2. िेवंगों ी-िेवनिल्ली ृाइृलाइन (डीडीृीएल)

इससे ृूवि एस.ओ. सं्‍या 1279 दिनांक 16.08.2018 के अंतगित भारत के रािृत्र में दिनांक 01.09.2018 प्रकाजित

कनािटक राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए ृिले अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी, श्री सी रािेि कुमार,

वररष्ठ प्रचालन प्रबंिक, इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन, िेवनगों ी, बैंगलोर, कनािटक, को

डी- नोरटफ़ाइड समझा िाए।

यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारी से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/239/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13892]

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1809—In Pursuance of sub section (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline

(Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act) , the Central

Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4125

of the Competent authority under the said Act for IndianOil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in

column (2) for its operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in column (3) of the said Table:

Name & Address of Person

Area of Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipelines (s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Shaheem M.

Chief Operations Manager,

IndianOil Corporation Limited

Southern Region Pipelines, Devanagonthi,

Bangalore, Karnataka

Karnataka State

Chennai-Bangalore

Pipeline

(CBPL)

2. Devangonthi-Devanahalli

Pipeline (DDPL) – Common

Carrier Pipeline

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the Karnataka State, Shri C. Rajesh

Kumar, Senior Operations Manager, IndianOil Corporation Limited, Southern Region Pipelines, Devanagonthi,

Bangalore, Karnataka vide S.O No. 1279 dated 16.08.2018 published in the Gazette of India dated 01.09.2018 stands

de-notified.

The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F.No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-1/E-13892]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1810.—ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृयोग के अजिकार का अजिग्रिण) अजिजनयम

जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कायों को करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।

व्यजि का नाम एवं ृता

क्षेत्राजिकार क्षेत्र

ृेरोजलयम ृाइृलाइनों का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री ियिेब मन्ना

मिाप्रबंिक (अनुरक्षण)

इंजडयनऑयल

कॉृोरेिन

जलजमटेड

ृूवी

क्षेत्र

ृाइृलाइन,

कोलकाता

ृजश्चम बंगाल

राज्य

1. िजल्िया

म़ौरीग्राम

रािबंि

ृाइृलाइन

(एचएमआरबीृीएल)

2. िजल्िया बऱौनी ृाइृलाइन (HBPL)

3. गुवािाटी जसलीगुड़ी ृाइृलाइन (िीएसृीएल)

4. कोलकाता एटीएफ ृाइृलाइन (के-एटीएफ लाइन)

5. ृारािीृ िजल्िया बऱौनी ृाइृलाइन (PHBPL)

6. ृारािीृ सोमना ृुर िजल्िया ृाइृलाइन (PSHPL)

7. 30” िजल्िया बऱौनी ृाइृलाइन (30” एचबीृीएल)

8. ृारािीृ

िजल्िया

बऱौनी

मोजतिारी

ृाइृलाइन

(ृीएचएमबीृीएल)

इससे ृुबि, एस.ओ. सं्‍या 1043 दिनांक 26.11.2020 के अंतगित भारत के रािृत्र में दिनांक 05.12.2020 प्रकाजित

और एस.ओ. सं्‍या 90 दिनांक 22.01.2021 के अंतगित भारत के रािृत्र में दिनांक 06.02.2021 प्रकाजित ृजश्चम

बंगाल राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए ृिले अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी श्री ियिेब मन्ना, उृ

मिाप्रबंिक (प्रचालन), इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, ृूवी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन, कोलकाता को डी- नोरटफ़ाइड समझा

िाए।

यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारी से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं.आर- 11025(11)/19/2018-ओ-आर-I/ई-27024]

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

4126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1810.—In Pursuance of sub section (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition

of Right of Users in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act) , the Central Government hereby

authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions of the Competent

authority under the said Act for IndianOil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in column (2) for its

operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in column (3) of the said Table:

Name & Address of Person

Area of

Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipelines (s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Jayadeb Manna

General Manager (Maintenance)

IndianOil Corporation Limited

Eastern Region Pipelines, Kolkata

West

Bengal

State

1. Haldia

Mourigram

Rajbandh

Pipeline

(HMRBPL)

2. Haldia Barauni Pipelines (HBPL)

3. Guwahati Siliguri Pipelines (GSPL)

4. Kolkata ATF Pipeline(Kol-ATF Line)

5. Paradip Haldia Barauni Pipeline (PHBPL)

6. Paradip Somnathpur Haldia Product Pipeline

(PSHPL)

7. 30” Haldia Barauni Pipelines (30” HBPL)

8. Paradip Haldia Barauni Motihari Pipelines

(PHBMPL)

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in West Bengal State, Shri Jayadeb Manna,

Deputy General Manager (Operations), IndianOil Corporation Limited, Eastern Region Pipelines, Kolkata vide

S.O. No. 1043 dated 26.11.2020 published in the Gazette of India dated 05.12.2020 and S.O No. 90 dated

22.01.2021 published in the Gazette of India dated 06.02.2021 stands de-notified.

The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/19/2018-OR-I/E-27024]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1811.—ृेरोजलयम और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में प्रयोिा के अजिकार का अििन) अजिजनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50), (इसमें इसके बाि उि अजिजनयम किा गया िज) की िारा 2 के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार

एतिद्वारा, कनािटक राज्य में मजससि इंजडयन ऑयल काृोरेिन जलजमटेड की एन् नोर-जतरुवल् लूर-बंगलुप -ृुिुच् चेरी-

नागाृरिनम-मिुरज-तूतीकोरीन प्राकषजतक गजस ृाइृलाइन (ईटीबीृीएनएमटीृीएल) ृररयोिना के जलये ृेरोजलयम और

जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में प्रयोिा के अजिकार का अििन) अजिजनयम, 1962 के तित श्री िािीम एम., मु्‍य ृररचालन

प्रबंिक, मजससि इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन को श्री सी. रािेि कुमार, वररष्ठ प्रचालन

प्रबंिक, इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, िजक्षणी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन के स्ट् ान ृर सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कायो का जनविन

करने के जलये प्राजिकषत करती िज।

2. यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की जतज से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/5/2021-िीृी-II [ई-47655]

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said Act), the Government of India hereby

authorizes Shri Shaheem M., Chief Operations Manager, M/s. IndianOil Corporation Limited, Southern Region

Pipelines vice Shri C Rajesh Kumar, Senior Operations Manager, M/s. IndianOil Corporation Limited, Southern

Region Pipelines to perform the functions of Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 for Ennore – Thiruvallur – Bengaluru – Puducherry – Nagapattinam

– Madurai – Tuticorin Natural Gas Pipeline (ETBPNMTPL) Project of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the

State of Karnataka.

2. This Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. L-14014/5/2021-GP-II [E-47655]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4127

जवद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 15 नवम्बर, 2023

का.आ. 1812.—केंरीय सरकार, रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन टीएचडीसी इंजडया जलजमटेड के

ुिाि एसटीृीृी, ग्राम एवं ृोस्ट्ट : िििरा, ेरली, तिसील- ुिाि, जिला-बुलंिििर (उ.प्र.) – 203131, जिसके

80 प्रजतित कमिचारीवषंि ने सिंिी का कायिसािक ञानान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. 11011/12/9/2023-सिंिी]

िीरि कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, मु्‍य अजभयंता (ईसी, ईटी एवं ईवी, ृीृीएम त ा प्रभारी रािभार्ा)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 15th November, 2023

S.O. 1812.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Khurja STPP, Village & Post- Dashera, Kherli,

Tehsil- Khurja, Distt.- Bulandshahr (U.P.)- 203131 of THDC India Limited under the administrative control of

Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No.11011/12/9/2023-Hindi]

DHIRAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Chief Engineer (EC, ET & EV, PPM and In-Charge O.L.)

सड़क ृररविन और रािमागि मंत्रालय

(सिंिी अनुभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 30 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1813—केंरीय सरकार रािभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्रीय कायािलय, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय रािमागि प्राजिकरण, जवियवाड़ा और क्षेत्रीय कायािलय,

भारतीय राष्ट्रीय रािमागि प्राजिकरण, भोृाल, जिनके 80% से अजिक कमिचाररयों ने सिंिी कायिसािक ञानान प्राप्त कर

जलया िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. ई.-12012/1/2023-जवजवि/सिंिी]

कमलेि चतुवेिी, संयुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Hindi Section)

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2023

S.O. 1813.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules,1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, NationalHighway Authority of India,

Vijaywada, and Regional Office, National Highway Authority of India, Bhopal, where more than 80% staff

haveacquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E. 12012/1/2023-Misc/Hindi]

KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy.

4128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1814.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार ररलायंस

फायर जब्रगेड सर्विसेि प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और भारतीय मििूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-39/2006) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 11.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ाl

[सं. एल-30012/3/2006- आईआर(एम)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2023

S.O. 1814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2006) 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 Reliance

Fire Brigade Services Pvt. Ltd., and Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 11.10.2023.

[No. L-30012/3/2006-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- 39/2006

Sh. V. K. Koti, Head of Fire Department,

Reliance Fire Brigade Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Motikavdi, PO Digvijaygram,

JAMNAGAR - 361140

…...…….First Party

Sh. Satendu S. Tiwari (Deceased)

1/1.Smt. Chanda Tiwari (Wife of deceased)

1/2.Shri Soham Tiwari (Son of deceased)

1/3. Shiksha Kumari (Daughter of deceased)

all C/o. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,

17, Abhay Shopping Centre,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4129

Opp. DSP Bunglow,

JAMNAGAR

………….Second Party

Advocate For the First Party employer : Shri A. P. Hathi

Advocate For the Second Party workman : Shri Rajesh Singh Thakur

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/3/2006-

IR(M) dated 30.01.2006 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 M/s Reliance Fire Brigade Services Pvt. Ltd., Motikhavadi, Jamnagar

in terminating the services of Sh. Satendu S. Tiwari, Fire Operator cum driver w.e.f. 25.02.2005, without

following the principles of natural justice is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is

entitled to?”

1. The Case is fixed for the cross examination of Smt. Chanda Tiwari widow of deceased workman. Parties

have jointly moved compromise/settlement Ex.25 on the ground that the First Party/employer has agreed to

pay Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lacs only) to the substituted legal heirs of the deceased workman Shri

Satendu S. Tiwari with the following description:

Smt. Chanda Tiwari (Wife of deceased)

: Rs.2,66,666/-

Shri Soham Tiwari(minor son of deceased) : Rs.2,66,667/-

Shiksha Kumari(minor daughter of deceased): Rs.2,66,667/-

2. Smt. Chanda Tiwari (self) and minor children through natural mother Smt. Chanda Tiwari have been

identified by Shri Rajesh Singh Thakur, Adv. Shri Ashish B. Shah, Senior General Manager for the employer

Reliance Fire Brigade Services Pvt. Ltd. has been identified by Shri A. P. Hathi, Adv.

3. In order to protect and preserve the interest of the minors, it is directed that the share of Smt. Chanda Tiwari

(Wife of deceased) shall be credited to her saving bank A/c. No.38646278619 of State Bank of India,

Barauni Refinery Township Branch within 15 days. Remaining shares of Rs.2,66,667/- each shall be kept in

a fix deposit in any nationalised bank offering maximum interest till the minors Soham Tiwari (Son) and

Shiksha Tiwari (Daughter) attain the age of majority. It is made clear that if the minor share holders, after

attaining their majority age, apply to encash their F. D.’s from their respective towns for transfer, the same

shall be transferred to their convenient bank after verifying their identity and majority age. The settlement is

accordingly verified and allowed. The award is passed accordingly. The settlement/compromise Ex.25 shall

remain part of the award.

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

of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1815.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष, भारतीय िस्ट्तजिल्ृ एवं ि करघा जनगम,दिल्ली, चेयरृसिन, मजससि क्लॉ चजनल,नोएडा, ग़ौतम बुद्ध नगर, के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रिमत ान और 17 अन्य, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट(संिभि सं्‍या 334/2018) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.10.2023को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल -42011/52/2017-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

4130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2023

S.O. 1815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 334/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chairman, The Handicrafts & Handlooms Corporation of India, Delhi , The Chairperson, M/s Cloth

Channel, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, and Rahmat Khan and 17 others ,Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.10.2023.

[No. L-42011/52/2017-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

Present :

Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.)

(Presiding officer)

CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No. 334/2018

Sh. Rahmat Khan and 17 others

Sh. Rahmat Khan S/o Mohd. Shaffi

House No. A-1296, Durga Gali, Mandawali

Delhi-110092

Workman…

Versus

1. The Chairman,

The Handicrafts & Handlooms Corporation of India,

Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Annexe-1, Tolstoy Marg,

Delhi – 110001

2. Chairperson,

M/s Cloth Channel,

393, Sector-29, Noida,

Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P-201301

Management…

None for the claimant

None for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-42011/52/2017-IR(DU) dated 22.11.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the workman Sh. Rahmat Khan and 17 others (annexed) are entitled for reinstatement against the

management of The Handicrafts & Handlooms Exports Corporation of India as Tailor with all consequential

benefits? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4131

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the fact that

the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 11.04.2023

नई दिल्ली, 18 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1816.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

िुगािृुर स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सिंिुस्ट्तान स्ट्टील वकिसि यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-25/2018) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल -26011/17/2018-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th October, 2023

S.O. 1816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL and Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 18.10.2023.

[No. L-26011/17/2018-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 25 OF 2018

PARTIES: Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union

Vs.

Management of Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Rajat Dikshit, Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union

4132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Management:

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Iron and Steel.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.07.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-26011/17/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the alleged demand of Hindustan Steel Workers Union (HSWC) (INTUC) vide letter dated

25.02.2014 for reward/benefits to the employees of Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL, Durgapur for performing election

duty/counting duty is just, legal and proper? If yes, what reliefs the workmen are entitled to? What directions, if any,

are necessary in the matter? ”

On receiving Order No. L-26011/17/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018 from the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 25 of 2018 was registered on

19.11.2018 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, learned advocate for Durgapur Steel Plant is present and filed a joint petition of

settlement of Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC) and Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL supported by affidavits.

Perused the application executed by Mr. Rajat Dikshit, Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union (INTUC)

and Mrs. Manasi Chel, AGM (Pers-NW), SAIL - Durgapur Steel Plant.

After issuance of Notice to the parties, written statement has been filed by the then Joint Secretary of the

workers’ union. No written statement has been filed by the management of Durgapur Steel Plant.

In the meantime, parties resolved their dispute on terms and conditions settled between them, wherein it has

been laid down that at present the Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union does not wish to press the demand regarding

payment of rewards/incentives for performance of election duty for which present Reference has been made, as such

claim on behalf of Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union shall be treated as withdrawn. Disputes regarding election duties

in future (if any) shall be settled through discussions. Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.07.2023 executed by

representatives of parties has been presented before the Tribunal for consideration. In view of the settlement reached,

the Industrial Dispute is disposed of in terms of settlement dated 31.07.2023. Let the Memorandum of Settlement, in

two pages be made a part of the Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is disposed of in terms of settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and the Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.07.2023 is made 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, 31 अक् तूबर, 2023

का.आ. 1817.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; एलृीिी प्लांट, बीृीसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और भारत ृेरोजलयम

कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड एम्ृलॉईस यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-36/2016) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 31.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल -30011/10/2016- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4133

New Delhi, the 31st October, 2023

S.O. 1817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; LPG Plant, BPCL and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.10.2023.

[No. L-30011/10/2016-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present

Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

ID Case No. 36 of 2016

Date of passing award – 28^th day of July, 2023

Between

1. The Chief Manager, East,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhavan,

Plot No. 31, C.I.T. Scheme Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road,

Kolkatta – 700095.

2. The Territory Manager,

LPG Plant, BPCL,

Khurda (Orissa) – 751007.

…

1^st Party Management

(And)

The General Manager,

Bharat Petroluem Corporation Ltd. Employees Union,

Eastern Region, 17, Ultadanga Road,

Kolkatta – 700004.

…

2^nd Party Union

Appearances:

Shri B. P. Tripathy, Advocate

…

For 1^st Party Managements

Shri Dipak Kumar Bhattacharyya

…

For 2^nd Party Union

AWARD

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

dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and

their workmen at LPG Plant of M/s. BPCL, Khurda represented through Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

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

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) vide their order No. L-30011/10/2016-IR(M) dated 13.6.2016 to this Tribunal for adjudication

to the following effect.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s BPCL Khurda LPG Plant in introducing the

operation of 2^nd Shift as per the provision of Certified Standing Order by giving one day notice to the

4134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen violating Section - 9 A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1047 is legally tenable and justified? If not,

what relief the workmen of the union are entitled to?”

After receipt of the schedule of reference and the Statement of Claim filed by the 2^nd Party-Union notice was

issued to the 1^st Party-Managements for filing of their Written Statements to which the 1^st Party-Managements have

duly filed during course of adjudication.

The 2^nd Party-Union in its Statement of Claim has raised objections against the introduction of 2^nd Shift

operations with effect from 19.01.2016 by the Management at its LPG Plant, Khurda and prayed to declare the action

of the Management as illegal and violative of applicable statutes / law, etc.

On the other hand, the 1^st Party-Managements in their Written Statement inter-alia have tried to justify their

action of introducing the 2^nd Shift operations at their LPG Plant, Khurda and denied all the allegations made by the 2^nd

Party-Union in their Statement of Claim.

However, during the course of adjudication, both the parties have settled the present dispute out of court and

filed original copy of their Memorandum of Settlement in Form – H containing 02 (two) numbers of terms and

conditions as agreed between them in this dispute. Submitting their Memorandum of Settlement, both parties have

prayed the Tribunal to close this case in terms of the settlement arrived at between them. The terms of Memorandum

of Settlement executed between Shri Girish Sonawane, Territory Manager (LPG), M/s. BPCL, Khurda and Shri

Ramesh Nayak, Authorised Representative of the 2^nd Party-Union are as under.

“1.

That pursuant to the execution of agreement on wages and other matters with 1^st party M/s. Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 28.3.2023, the 2^nd party has settled the disputes with the Management under the

settlement and accordingly the 2^nd party union does not want to proceed further with the present case.

That it is further agreed between the parties to submit the Memorandum of Settlement before the

Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 36 of 2016 as a measure of mutual

settlement.”

Considering the facts and circumstance and the submissions of the stake holders of this case, the Tribunal is

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

same have already been settled and no further adjudication is required under the Act. Hence this award is passed in

terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the 1^st Party-Management and the 2^nd Party-Union. The

Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties in this case forms part of the award.

This is the award of this Tribunal.

Dictated and corrected by me

Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA CUM-

LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWA

I.D.CaseNo.36/2016

THEINDUSTRIALDISPUTESCENTRALRULES,1957

FORM-H

(SeeRule58)

FROMOFMEMORANDUMOFSETTLEMENT

NAME OF PARTIES

Representing Employer of Management:

Chief Manager, East, BPCL Represented by

Sri

And

Representing

Workman, Sri Ramesh

Nayak,

S/o SriSiba Nayak

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4135

Local Secretary of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Employees Union At-

LPG Plant, Khurda, Po/Ps/Dist-Khurda

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE

WHEREAS the said Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Employees Union

(hereinafter referred to as Union) has espoused the industrial dispute regarding alleging

violation of provision u/s. 9-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is subject matter of

proceeding under I.D.Case No.36/2016 pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the

Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd

(herein after referred to as Management);

AND WHEREAS both the parties have negotiated from time to time for an amicable settlement of the dispute in

question and as a result of the discussions,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Employees Union have signed an-agreement on wages and other matters

with 1^stparty M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 28.3.2023 and accordingly both the parties have agreed

upon the following:.-

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

That pursuant to the execution of agreement on wage sand other matters with 1^st party M/s. Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 28.3.2023, the 2^ndparty has settled the disputes with the Management under

this settlement and accordingly the 2^nd party union does not want to proceed further with the present case.

3. That it is further agreed between the parties to submit this Memorandum of Settlement before the Presiding

Officer, Central Govt Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar in I.D.Case No. 36 of 2016 as a measure of mutual settlement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF both the parties append their signatures having accepted the above terms and

conditions.

For & on Behalf of Management

Witnesses :

( )

Authorised Representative

1^st Party

(Sri Ramesh Nayak)

2^nd Party

Authorized Representative

ubZ fnYyh] 16 uoEcj] 2023

.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

इंजडयन ओवरसीि बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कानृुर ds iapkV (144/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/31/2019-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2023

S.O. 1818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.144/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kanpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12012/31/2019- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

PRESENT

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA

HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 144 of 2019

L-12012/31/2019-IR(B-II) dated 10.07.2019

BETWEEN

Sh. Satya Prakash Tripathi S/o

Late Ram Nath Tripathi,14/130,

Civil lines , Kanpur(U.P.)-208001

AND

The Chief Regional Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office,

Nav chetana Kendre, Ashok Marg,Lucknow-226001

AWARD

This award arises in respect of the reference mentioned in the schedule stated below as received from the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour in letter No.L-12012/31/2019-IR(B-II) Dated 10.07.2019.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank passing dismissal order dated 29.09.2015

after the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2015 of the workman Shri Satya Prakash Tripathi, Clerk resulting non-

payment of retrial/terminal dues is just , fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled

to ?’

The claimant workman has submitted his statement of claim which is concisely stated as mentioned here in after-

The workman joined the services of Indian Overseas Bank on 09.08.1978 at its Meerut Branch in the post of

Shroff/Godown keeper and retired from the service on 31.07.2015 on attaining the age superannuation while posted at

Branch Office at Unnao,U.P. It is submitted that though he is deemed to have retired from the service of OP bank on

31 July,2015 on attaining the age super annuation the OP management arbitrarily passed the order of dismissal on

29.09.2015 which is unsustainable in eye of Law. It is stated that the order of dismissal passed by the OP bank came

to the knowledge of the claimant workman in course of proceedings in writ petition no. 56257/2015 before the

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 02.11.2015 much after the date of retirement. It is averred by the claimant

workman that the letter dated 31.07.2015 issued by the bank is a fake document without genuineness contrived

against the Bipartite settlement of 2002. The disciplinary authority was not competent to issue the order of dismissal

after the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2015. The claimant workman prayed for quashing the order of dismissal dated

29.09.2015 and for allowing retiral pensionary benefits in favour of the claimant workman. Management of the OP

bank submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated here in after-

On 03.02.2009 the claimant workman was placed under suspension on initiation of disciplinary enquiry on allegations

of embezzle and misappropriation of funds and on allegation of indulging in activities prejudicial to the interests of

the bank. On 08.05.2009 charge sheet issued by disciplinaryauthority was served on the claimant. In the said charge

sheet specific allegation was stated that the claimant indulged in misappropriation of bank funds. The applicant

instead of filing reply to the charge sheet challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow by filing Writ Petition No. 2633(S/S) 2009. The Hon’ble Court vide its order dated

21.05.2009 was pleased to observe that as the specific charge against the employee was misappropriation of funds, as

such it was not inclined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings as well as suspension order. It was directed by

the Hon’ble Court that the inquiry shall be completedwithin a time frame. There after the enquiry proceeding

proceeded and order dated 20.08.2009 was issued by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in writ Petition no. 2633(S/S

of 2009) directing the bank not to take final decision in the matter. On 29.06.2009 the disciplinary authority appointed

the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry. On 01.09.2009 the claimant was called upon to appear before the

disciplinary authority for personal hearing but the claimant did not appear . On 03.11.2010 the notice was issued to

the claimant but he did not appear before the issuing authority. The direction of disciplinary authority dated

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4137

03.11.2010 was challenged before the Hon’ble Allahabad HighCourt in writ petition no. 7993(S/S OF 2010) praying

for quashing the notice dated 03.11.2010 issued by the disciplinary authority and for reinstatement on which direction

was issued to the claimant to appear before the Disciplinary Authority on 23.12.2010. On 23.12.2010 the claimant

appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and submitted the representation along with an order dated 16.12.2010

issued by RLC (Kanpur) directing the OP Bank to maintain Status quo. It is averred by the OP management that

under the said circumstances though enquiry had been completed within the time limit fixed by the Hon’ble High

Court in the year 2009 the disciplinary proceeding against the claimant could not be finalized. The order of the RLC

dated 23.05.2011 was challenged by the OP management in writ Petition no. 3592(M/S OF 2011) before the Hon’ble

Allahabad High Court at Lucknow. On 17.07.2015 notice was issued to the claimant to appear before the Disciplinary

Authority for personal hearing and before that the letter issued by the RLC dated 16.07.2015 asking the OP

management of the bank an order of status quo for which the Disciplinary proceeding could proceed. Later, by order

14.08.2015 in writ petition no. 3592(M/S OF 2011) the proceeding undersection 33C(2) was directed to be decided on

04.09.2015 on the next succeeding working day. In the meanwhile a letter was received from theSuperintendent of

Police CBI Lucknow containing some criminal aspersions against the compliant. The Disciplinary authority after

considering the enquiry report and the other connected aspects on 29.09.2015 passed the order of dismissal on the

claimant. The claimant has filed the rejoinder reiterating the nullity of the order of dismissal dated 29.09.2015. For the

sake of brevity it is declared that the claimant workman has admittedauthenticity of the documents filed by the OP

side in this proceeding.

For adjudication of this Industrial Dispute the following points are to be addressed:-

1. Whether the action of the management of the Indian Overseas Bank passing order of dismissal dated 29.09.2015

after date of retirement on 31.07.2015 on claimant workman Shri S.P. Tripathi can be held to be illegal or invalid in

eye of law.

2. To what relief the Claimant workman is entitled?For the sake of clarification it is stated that the domestic enquiry

against the claimant workman was initiated with issuance hence of charge sheet dated

08.05.2009. In the said chargesheet the following allegations as stated below were made against the claimant

workman?It appears that the claimant workman had not submitted any counter againstthe chargesheet and the

domestic enquiry was conducted against the claimant workman. After conclusion of enquiry the enquiry officer

submitted the enquiry report and one notice dated 03.11.2010 was issued to by Deputy General Manager the

disciplinary authority to the claimant workman askinghim to appear in personal hearing in the matter of proposed

punishment of dismissal in terms of a use 6(a) of the memorandum of the settlement dated 10.04.2002 between the

Bank and its workman . In the said notice dated 03.11.2010 the disciplinary authority had made categorical

observation that the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. It was concluded by the enquiry officer that the counter

clerk had debited Rs. 1500 from SB account no. 354 of the Branch in the name of Shri Rajkumar Mishra but the

counter clerk omitted to mark the transaction no. 14 on the withdrawal slip and Mr. Tripathi Subsequently debited

Rs.1500 for the SB account no.354 in the system as transaction no. 23 and made payment of Rs. 1500 to the account

holder and the transaction no. 14 was dealt by the claimant workman in a mischievous manner. It was held that the

withdrawal slip related to transition no. 14 was passed by the manager on the behest of claimant workman .In the

enquiry it was concluded that on 15.12.2008 the claimant workman had tallied and had the cash and had written the

cash balance and subsequently the Assistant Manager of the Branch had detected shortage of 15 pieces of 500 Rupee

notesand the action of the claimant workman with regard to shortage of 15 piecesof 500 rupee notes was treated as

attempt to commit misappropriation .The issuance of notice by the disciplinary authority was challenged before the

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and by Order dated 24.11.2010 in case service single no.7993/2010.the workman was

directed to appear on 23.12.2010 the workman has appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and after personal

hearing the chapter of personal hearing was closed. On 16.12.10 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Kanpur one complaint was filed with allegation of violation of mandatory provisions . It is seen that by order dated

23.05.2011 the Regional Labour Commissioner (RLC) had issued direction to the parties ,the management and the

workman to maintain the status quo. It is seen that by letter dated 31.07.2015 Chief Manager had issued the letter to

the workman informing that he shall be deemed to be in service for thepurpose of completion of disciplinary

proceedings after the date of super annuation on 31.07.2015. By order dated 14.08.2015 in mis single no. 3592/2011 a

direction was issued to the O.P. Management to finally decide proceeding under 33 (C) (2) on 04.09.2015. It is

vehemently contended on behalf of the claimant workman that the O.P. disciplinary authority is not vested with any

authority to pass order of dismissal after the date of superannuation, that is 31.07.2015. On behalf of the claimant a

case law Dev Prakash Tiwari appellants V/s U.P. Coop Institutional Service Board, Lucknow pronounced by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal no. 5848-49/2014 has been referred . In the aforesaid case law it has

been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in following words:-The aforesaid observation of Hon’ble Supreme

Court appears to have been rendered with reference to special circumstances of that case. Through no provision of

continuation of departmental proceeding after date of super annuation has been brought to the notice of this Tribunal

the allegation of misappropriation of bank fund amounting to grave misconduct on the part of one bank employee

could not have vanished. For the sake of clarity it can be stated here that if bank employees are allowed impunity

even after detection of misconduct in departmental enquiry devastating consequences shall be- fall over banking

4138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

industry. It is well settled in law that in respect of departmental proceeding this Tribunal does not function as

appellate authority. At the cost of repetition it can be stated here that when the finding of the enquiry have not been

challenged by the delinquent workman there is little scope for revisiting the correctness of the enquiry. In the final

order of dismissal it has been observed by the disciplinary authority that the though the amountinvolved is small the

gravity of his conduct is not lessened for one bank employee with smallness of the amount. The delay in disposal of

disciplinaryproceeding and passing of the final order of dismissal cannot be solely attributed to laxity on the part of

O.P. management. The spirit of the bipartitesettlement imposes special responsibility on the employees of the

banking industry in the matter of upholding the values of honesty and integrity. View ofthe majority of the Bench of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case law Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited

versus Rabindranath Choubey reported in AIR 2020 SC 2978 is in support of continuance of departmental proceeding

against the delinquent employee even after attainment of age of superannuation. In view of the forgoingdiscussions it

is held that the action of the management of the IndianOverseas Bank passing order of dismissal of claimant Shri

Satya Prakash Tripathi dated 29.09.2015 cannot be held to be illegal. The claimant is not entitled to any consequential

relief.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 15.06.2023

SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer

Let a soft copy be sent to the Ministry and two hard copies of the same will follow in due course of time.

Date: 15.06.2023

ubZ fnYyh] 17 uoEcj] 2023

.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV (a01 (C ) of 2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y - L-12011/85/2015- IR(B.II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2023

S.O. 1819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01 (C ) of 2016) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/85/2015- IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:- 01 (C) of 2016

Between the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office,

Ara, Distt.- Arah (Bhojpur) Bhojpur (Bihar ) And their workman Sri Umesh Prasad, represented through the General

Secretary, Punjab National Bank Employees Union (Bihar), Punjab National Bank, Boring Road, Patna (BIHAR).

For the management:-

Sri Dinesh Kumar, Sr. Manager, PNB.

For the workman:-

Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employee Federation, Bihar.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt- 13^th September, 2023.

By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/85/2015-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 21.12.2015 the Govt. of India

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

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

management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Ara, Distt.- Arah (Bhojpur) Bhojpur (Bihar ) And

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4139

their workman Sri Umesh Prasad, represented through the General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Employees

Union (Bihar), Punjab National Bank, Boring Road, Patna (BIHAR) for adjudication to this tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of PNB to impose a punishment of Be Compulsorily Retired with

Superannuation Benefits i.e pension and provident Fund without disqualification for further employment

after a defective enquiry in violation of Natural Justice was proportionate? If not, what relief the workman

was entitled to?”

Briefly stated the case of workman is that the workman joined the services of Punjab National Bank on

06.01.1994 as clerk-cum-cashier at Muzaffar Nagar Branch, Uttar Pradesh on being transferred on mutual basis, the

workman joined at Bhatni Branch in October, 1997. Ultimately he has joined the Bheria branch Dehri-on-Sone on

06.01.2010 after the transfer from Bhatni Branch. It is further asserted that they were two clerical staff at Bheria

Branch one head cashier II and another Clerk – cum- cashier. It is further asserted that the workman had been

assigned the clerical duties of account opening including opening of loan A/cs, posting of debit, credit entries and

other sundry works of a clerical staff. It is further asserted that that while working at Bheria branch, the workman was

served a charge sheet on 21.03.2014 but papers relating to the charges has not been supplied to the workman. It is

further asserted that five charges were framed against the workman out of which charge no.-1 & 2 were related to

some excess deposit and charge no0.-3 to 5 relating to loan maters. It is further asserted that the workman was not

supplied a copy of preliminary enquiry report. It is further asserted that during the course of domestic enquiry no

witness was produced from the presenting officer. However, workman produce one witness. It is further asserted that

enquiry officer did not hold the enquiry fairly and properly and submitted one side report. It is further asserted that

disciplinary authority did not supply the copy of the recommendation of CVO at the time of issuance of 2^nd show

cause relating to proposed punishment. It is further asserted that disciplinary authority without applying proper and

independent mind passed the impugned order on 31.01.2015 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from

the service of the bank. It is further asserted that the workman preferred the appeal against the order of the

disciplinary authority but appellate authority also did not consider the version of workman and uphold the order of the

disciplinary authority. It is further asserted that then the workman raised the dispute before the ALC (C), Patna that

ended in failure then the dispute of the workman is referred to this tribunal to adjudicate the issue. It is further

asserted that charge sheet were not inconformity with the provision of Bipartite Settlement No.- 5(J) dt-10.04.2002. It

is further asserted that the workman is innocent and did not commit any misconduct and is simply victim of the

circumstances. Accordingly the workman press for following relief:-

(i)

Reinstatement in the services of the bank with all consequential benefits including back wages.

(ii)

Payment of a cost of Rs. 20,000/- for contesting the dispute;

(iii)

Any other relief (S) deem fit and proper.

On the other hand the management also filed written statement, mentioning therein, the workman Umesh

Prasad had joined the management bank as a clerk on 06.01.1994. He was served with charge sheet dt-21.03.2014 for

committing various lapses and irregularities i.e

Charge No.:- 1- there were abnormal transactions in his OD & of Rs. 12.25 Lacs & Rs. 7.32 Lacs and Rs. 10.223 lacs

in his OD

and various FD accounts beyond known source of his income.

Charge No.:- II –There were transactions of Rs. 9.41 Lacs approximately from various SF/RD/FD accounts

maintained in the name of the workman jointly with his wife and son in various branches which were beyond

his source of income.

Charge No.:-III- Being a clerk cum cashier, most of the KCC documents disbursed during his tenure of stay were

filled up in his own hand writing which shows a malafide intention.

Charge No.- IV- There was 70% cash disbursement on the date of sanction of all KCC accounts and multiple

financing while he was posted at BO Bheriya, Remaining 30% were disbursed with one month of the

sanctioned date and all the vouchers were entered by him.

Charge No.:-V- The branch officials and the written depositions by the borrowers confirmed his malafide intention

and well acquaintances with local middlemen in malpractices.

These are the matters of gross misconduct as defined in para 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dt-10.04.2002.It is further

asserted that the enquiry officer conducted enquiry fair and properly as per prescribed norms of the bank.

Management bank denied the version of the claimant and submissions that the charges framed against the claimant

were for abnormal transaction done on his account beyond known source of his income. The charges levelled against

him come under gross misconduct as defined in para-5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The charge sheet dt- 21.03.2014

and the order of the disciplinary authority are in consonance with the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. It is

further asserted that enquiry officer followed the norms of the bank in conducting the enquiry and provided

4140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

opportunity to the charged sheet employee to defend himself.It is further asserted that the enquiry officer did not

submit one-sided report rather on the basis of materials hold charge no.-1 proved and charge no.-2 partially proved

and charge no.-3,4,5 as not proved. It is further asserted that the findings of enquiry officer has not been ultered by the

disciplinary authority. It is the duty of the disciplinary authority to take into the consideration all the charges and

evidence before deciding the charge proved or otherwise the disciplinary authority had given genuinereason for

holding charge no.-(ii) as proved with the following observation:-

(a)

The presenting officer has confirmed that A/C No.-2170000200009003,

2170000200004211,

217000PR00000075, 123700010054537 does not belong to the CSE. The same is produced as DE-4 by the CSE. Out

of Rs. 9.41 Lacs, Rs. 5.54 Lac doesn’t relate to the CSE. Only Rs. 3.87 lac relates to the CSE. The rest 10 accounts

relates to the CSE.

(b)

A/C No.- 217000TR00000141 having cust ID DFL003857 & 217000PR00004655 having Cust ID

BV0003859 relates to the CSE which are confirmed from the CBS as staff / PF No.- 83623 is fed in Cust ID.

(c)

A/C No.- 123700TR00000027, 123700TR00000196 & 123700TR00000266 having Cust ID 305402732

relates to the CSE which is confirmed from the CBS as the Cust ID of OD A/C 1237009400014038 is also

305402732.

(d)

A/C No.- 1237003298773033 having Cust ID 305405115 relates to the CSE which is confirmed from the

CVS as staff No.- EMP123700 is fed in Cust ID address fed in Cust ID is staff, PNB Bhatni. The CSE worked in

branch office Bhatni prior to 30.03.2010 and transferred to branch office Bhariya on 31.03.2010.

(e)

Account No.- 2170007800000025 & 2170008200000040 having Cust ID 305404972 relates to the CSE

which is confirmed from the CBS as staff No.- EMP123700 is fed in Cust ID. Address fed in Cust ID is staff, PNB.

The above accounts are opened in BO: Bheriya having cust ID 305404972 of BO: Bhatni.

(f)

Account NO.- 217000DA00000933 having cust ID DFL003988 & 217000TR00000178 having Cust ID

DFL004344 relates to the CSE which is confirmed from the CBS as address fed in Cust ID is Staff, PNB. Introducer

of these two accounts is 305404972, who is the staff of PNB.

In view of the above, the DA didn’t agree with the finding of inquiry authority that the charge partially

proved and held the charge-II as proved. It is further submitted that the CVO advisory role to the disciplinary

authority for 1^st stage and 2^nd stage advice. It is further asserted that the appointment of disciplinary authority and

enquiry officer have been done as per PAD consolidated circular no. 9/2014 dt- 25.02.2014. It is further asserted that

the disciplinary authority has gone through the charge sheet dt- 21.03.2014, all relevant records of enquiry, findings

of the enquiry officer dt- 27.09.2014 and submissions of the comments of the charges employee on enquiry report and

held the claimant guilty of charges proved against him on the basis of evidence. It is further asserted that the during

the personal hearing, the contention of the charges employee as well as his defence assistant was heard and the

charged employee was given ample opportunity to explain his arguments and finally disciplinary imposed penalty and

further appellate authority also as acted with independent of mind and dismissed the appeal. It is further asserted that

disciplinary authority has duly considered evidence both the documentary and oral led before him, as also the records

of the enquiry proceedings before arriving at the conclusion with mind. The appellate authority also acted with the

independent application of mind and dismissed the appeal after taken into consideration of all the relevant records of

enquiry, finding of the enquiry officer and order of the disciplinary authority. It is further asserted that imposing the

punishment of compulsory retirement from the services of the bank as the punishment imposed upon CSE is very

much in line with Bi-partite Settlement at industry level and also very much commensurate with the gravity of

charges proved against the CSE.Accordingly prayer for the relief of the workman is baseless and bank request to

dismiss the application of the workman as no merit in the case. So the action of the management imposing

punishment fit and order dt-31.05.2015 be held to legal and just.

After perusing the statement of claim as well as the written statement has filed by the management bank, this

tribunal initially took the matter to adjudicate whether the domestic enquiry as conducted by the management bank

against the CSE was just and fair and it was impartially and properly conducted following the principles of natural

justice. In this connection management examined two witnesses namely M.W-1 Sanjay Kumar Sahay and M.W-2

Anil Kumar Sinha the enquiry officer. Besides, the oral evidence management side also filed some documents and

marked Exts.:-

(i)

Ext.M- Order of PNB, Circle Office, Arrah dt-19.04.2014.

(ii)

Ext.-M/1- Charge sheet dt- 21^st March 2014.

(iii)

Ext.-M/2- Enquiry Proceedings.

(iv)

Ext.- M//3- Enquiry Report.

(v)

Ext.-M/4- Account ledger inquiry..

(vi)

Ext.-M//5- Account ledger inquiry dt-02.10.2012, 09.11.2012, and including vouchers.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4141

(vii)

Ext.-M/6- Order of Disciplinary Authority dt- 31.01.2015.

(viii)

Ext.-M/7- Appeal against the order dt-31.01.2015 written by Umesh Prasad.

(ix)

Ext.-M/8- Order of Appellate Authority dt- 15.04.2015.

On the other hand workman side also examined witness namely W.W-1 Umesh prasad the workman himself

but no documents has been brought on the record from the workman during the course of evidence. This tribunal

further finds that after scrutinizing the evidence as led by both the sides and after hearing the both the sides on the

fairness of domestic enquiry, this tribunal hold the domestic enquiry was just fair and it was impartially and properly

conducted following the principles of natural justice vide order dt-22.11.2018 and subsequently this tribunal fixed the

case of hearing on quantum of punishment.

This tribunal further finds that the workman side examined altogether three witnesses on merit W.W-1

Ganga Devi, W.W-2 Kamlesh Prasad and W.W-3 Umesh Prasad the workman himself after seeking permission from

the tribunal on 27.02.2019. Besides, the oral evidence the workman side filed some documents that got to be marked

as Exts.:-

(i)

Ext.-W- Land possession certificate issued by Circle Officer, Akodhi Gola (Rohtas ).

(ii)

Ext.-W/1- Explanation of charge sheet dt-21.03.2014 written by Umesh Prasad given

to the Chief Manager (DA) PNB, DAC section, Circle Office, Arrah.

(iii)

Ext.-W/2- Affidavit given by the Binod Kumar Gupta & W/2-1 & Ganga Devi.

(iv)

Ext.-W/3 – Certificate of Appreciation dt-20.03.2013 & W/3-1& 02.04.2014.

but the management side did not adduce any evidence.

First of all this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of workman W.W-1 Gangan Devi who is the mother of the

workman Sri Umesh Prasad. Who stated before this tribunal that Umesh Prasad is her elder son and he is working in

PNB. This witness further stated that she owns 5.½ acre land and what ever the profit she earns from the agriculture

she used to give Umesh Prasad. She further stated that she gets Rs. 12,000/- family pension that is also given to the

Umesh Prasad. She further stated that the amount she gave to his son Umesh Prasad he used to credit the same in his

account. She also stated that she does not know the actual annual income from the agriculture land.

In corss-examination this witness admits that her husband died in the year 2002. Umesh was looking after

the income of agriculture land since 2010 and prior to 2010 her younger son Kamlesh was looking after the

agriculture land. The withdrawal of money from her account is also taken up by the Umesh Prasad.

W.W-2 Kamlesh Prasad is younger brother of Umesh prasad. He stated before this tribunal that he has taken

Rs. 60,000/- from Umesh Prasad in the year 2011 that he returned to him in three instalments. In cross-examination

this witness categorically admitted that he is in Railway service from 2017 and in the year 2014 he was posted in

Dehri-on-Sone as contract teacher . This witness also admitted that he was looking after the agriculture income from

2004 to 2010.

W.W-3 Umesh Prasad the workman himself who is stated before this tribunal that he joined the PNB,

Muzaffarnagar branch on 06.01.1994 on the post of clerk-cum-cashier. In the year 1997 be joined PNB Bhatni on

being transferred there and again he transferred to Bhahriya branch, Rohtas in the year 2010. This witness further

stated that when he joined Bhariya branch there were two clerks. This witness further stated that he has received the

charge sheet on 21.03.2014 mentioning therein five charges against him. This witness further stated that after the

enquiry charge no.- 3,4 & 5 were not proved. The enquiry officer found charge no.-1 proved and charge no.-2

partially proved later on disciplinary authority converted the charge no.-2 as proved from partially proved. This

witness further stated that besides the salary,the income from agriculture and the money received from the relatives

were deposited in his account. He also deposited the money what he received from his mother. This witness further

stated that he has filed the land possession certificate i.e grant by the circle officer, Akodhi Gola (Rohtas ) i.e in the

name of him, mother and brother marked as Ext.-W. This witness further proved the reply of the charge sheet marked

as Ext.-W/1. This witness further stated that he has filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority and

appellate authority has passed his order i.e already marked Exts during course of domestic enquiry as Ext.-M/7 & M/8

respectively. This witness further proved the affidavit of the Binod Kumar Gupta and Ganga Devi i.e marked as Ext.-

W/2 & W/2-1. This witness further stated that he used to deposit money in his account received from other sources

just to enhance business of the bank. This witness further stated that he also received the certificate of appreciation

from the bank twice i.e marked as Ext. W/3 & W/3-1 respectively. This witness further stated that the punishment

imposed upon him is totally baseless.

In cross-examination this witness categorically admitted in para-16 that he has received a copy of the charge

sheet and a copy of the proposed punishment received from the disciplinary authority. In para-17 this witness admits

that his mother get pension Rs. 12,000/- per months from the year 2004-05. This witness also admits in cross-

4142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

examination that he was doing the working of opening account, cash receipt and cash payment, and the work of

RTGS and NEFT in the Bheriya Branch. This witness further admits that he used to do all transaction from his salary

accounts and there was Rs. 1,75,000/- annual income from the agriculture. In para-19 of the cross-examination this

witness categorically stated that when he joined the Bheriya Branch Rs. 6,000/- ( Rs Six Thousand ) loan was due

against him and that was enhanced to Rs. 2,97,000/- ( Rs. Two Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand )when he received the

charges sheet.

10.

It is argued on behalf of the workman side that charges were levelled against the workman on wrong report,

out of five charges, three were not proved and one charge was proved and another partially proved. The charge no.-2

has been declared proved by the disciplinary authority i.e in violation of principle of natural justice. It has been

further argued that the workman has been charged with depositing money in his account beyond his source of income

i.e well explained by the workman other disclosed amount were of agriculture income, amount of pension received

from his mother, and two lakhs refunded from one of relative from Sri Binod Kumar Gupta. It is also argued that no

witness of the management averred that workman was ever indulged in any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank

causing any loss or likely to cause any loss of the bank. It is further argued that the workman is innocent and did not

commit any misconduct as per clause no.- 5(J) of the Bipartite Settlement dt-10.04.2002. The imposition of

punishment “ Be compulsorily retired” is not proper and just rather workman deserved to be exonerated from the

charges and punishment order to be set aside.

11.

On other hand it is argued from the management side that five charges has been attributed against charge

sheeted employee the workman for his gross misconduct as per clause 5(J) of the Bipartite Settlement dt-10.04.2002

for which enquiry officer hold the enquiry against the workman. Documents and evidence has been produced before

the enquiry officer by both sides, and on the basis of material, enquiry officer found the charge no.-1 is proved, that

was abnormal transaction in the OD and FD account of the workman that was beyond the known source of income

and charge no.-2 was partially proved as hold by the enquiry officer but when the enquiry report is considered and

appreciated by the disciplinary authority he found the charge no.-2 fully proved for which the reasons were duly

explained by the disciplinary authority while holding the charge no.-2 fully proved. It is argued that this tribunal also

found the enquiry conducted by the enquiry was fair and proper following the principle of natural justice. It is further

argued that the evidence as brought by the workman on record is just to deviate the attention of this tribunal because

no witness of the workman side could discard the charge no.-1 &charge no.-2 proved against the workman, not even

workman could be able to disproved the charges the levelled against him for his gross misconduct. It is argued from

the management side that it is well settled by the Apex Court while passing the judgement of the case of Union Bank

of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan reported in 1998(4)SCC 310 in the banking business, absolute devotion, diligence and

utmost integrity requires by every bank employee but the workman committed gross misconduct while doing his job

at Bhariya Branch, so the punishment imposed upon the workman is commensurate with the gravity of the charges. It

is also argued from the management side that in the case of Shashi Bushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General CISF in

Civil Appeal No.- 7130 of 2009. The Apex Court hold that Strict rules of Evidence Act does not apply in

departmental proceeding and only broad principle of natural justice are to be followed. Since the workman has been

failed to disprove the charges as the enquiry officer found guilty of chrges and later on, disciplinary authority and

appellate authority imposed the punishment, “Be compulsorily retired” with superannuation benefits i.e pension and

provident fund without of future employment is legal just and proportionate.

Considering all the fact and circumstances of the case and the considering the materials available on the

record and submissions as advanced on behalf of both the sides, this tribunal finds that Umesh Prasad, the workman

while serving in Bhariya Branch of Punjab National Bank was found indulged in committing various lapses and

irregularities discharging his duty as clerk cum cashier. Accordingly the workman was put under suspension by the

management bank and so charge sheet comprising five charges has been served upon him for which a enquiry has

been conducted by the management. Bank. This tribunal further finds that initially both the sides placed their

evidence on the preliminary point of fairness and propriety of domestic enquiry conducted against the workman. This

tribunal further finds after scrutinizing all the material as placed by both the sides, the enquiry as conducted by the

enquiry officer was just and fair following the principles of natural justice then the case is fixed for quantum of

punishment. This tribunal finds that this reference was referred to this tribunal to adjudicate :- “ Whether the action of

the management of of PNB to impose a punishment of Be Compulsorily Retired with Superannuation

Benefits

i.e pension and provident Fund without disqualification for further employment after a defective enquiry in violation

of Natural Justice was proportionate? If not, what relief the workman was entitled to?” This tribunal further finds that

the workman side argued that the management imposed punishment of compulsorily retirement is not in conformity

with the Bipartite Settlement as charge no.-2 was initially found partially proved by the enquiry officer later on it was

converted as fully proved by the disciplinary authority i.e beyond the provision of natural justice. But this contention

of the workman side is not acceptable at all because the disciplinary authority has right to impose punishment on the

basis of the material and the enquiry report as submitted by the enquiry officer. This tribunal finds that the

disciplinary authority has fully explained reason while converting the charge no. 2 as proved from partially proved.

This tribunal further finds that workman side has examined altogether three witness on merit of the case but none of

the witness including the workman has given any cogent and concrete evidence that could disprove the charge no.- 1

& 2 as it was levelled against the workman, that was found proved by the management bank and accordingly

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4143

disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement of workman with superannuation benefits

and further that is also upheld by the appellate authority after scrutinizing all the materials and the points raised by the

workman before the appellate authority.

13.

On the ultimate analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record as

discussed above, this tribunal finds and hold that the workman side has been completely failed to disprove the two

charges no.- 1 & 2 that was found proved by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority as well as appellate

authority. Accordingly this is considered opinion of this tribunal that the action of the management Punjab National

Bank to impose the punishment of Be Compulsorily Retired with Superannuation Benefit was just and proportionate.

Accordingly this tribunal finds no merit in the contention of the workman side. So the action of the management of

PNB imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits is just and proportionate. This

award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

Sd/- 13.09.2023

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1820.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससि जप्रज्म िोंसन जलजमटेड; मेससि रजव जसक्योररटी ऑगेनाइिेिन प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री राम सरोि कुिवािा, मिासजचव, जिला सतना सीमेंट स्ट्टील फाउंड्री िान कामगार यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-23/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक

में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.11.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल -29011/5/2019- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2023

S.O. 1820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Prism Jonson Ltd.;M/s Ravi Security Organization Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha, General

Secretary, Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kaamgar Union which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 17.11.2023.

[No. L-29011/5/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/23/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha, General Secretary,

Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kaamgar Union

AITUC Office, Sant Nagar, Ghwdang, Ward No.11

Post- Birla Vikas, District-Satna (MP). - 485005

Workman

Versus

The Director,

M/s Ravi Security Organization Pvt. Ltd.,

126, Mayur Market Thatipur, Gwalior (MP)-474011

4144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Factory Manager

M/s Prism Jonson Ltd.

(Formally Prism Cement Ltd.)

Village - Manakhari, Post Bathiya

Distt-Satna (M.P) -485001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10 day of October 2023.)

As per letter dated 26/04/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

no.F. No.-L-29011/5/2019-IR(M) dt.26/04/2022 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the demand of the Zila Satna Cement Foundry Khadan Kamgar Union in respect of

Overtime Allowance of 142 Security Guards working in the M/s Ravi Security Organization Pvt. Ltd. under

the principal employer M/s Prism Johnson Limited for the period 01.07.2015 to 31.03.2016 is fair, just and

legal? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the parties filed a copy of memorandum said to be reached at by the

parties and submitted that the matter has been compromised out of court and understating has been reached at

between the parties, hence, there is no dispute left under the reference. It has been prayed that no dispute award be

passed in the light of copy of memorandum filed, which is on record, which shows that the dispute has been set in

between the parties and no dispute remains as such. Hence no dispute award is passed. The award be sent to Central

Government for publication.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 10.10.2023

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1821.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-22/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक

[सं. एल -29011/6/2019- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2023

S.O. 1821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Prism Jonson Ltd.;M/s Ravi Security Organization Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha, General

Secretary, Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kaamgar Union which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 17.11.2023.

[No. L-29011/6/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4145

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/22/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Ram Saroj Kushwaha, General Secretary,

Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kaamgar Union

AITUC Office, Sant Nagar, Ghwdang, Ward No.11

Post- Birla Vikas, District-Satna (MP). - 485005

Workman

Versus

The Director,

M/s Ravi Security Organization Pvt. Ltd.,

126, Mayur Market Thatipur, Gwalior (MP)-474011

The Factory Manager

M/s Prism Jonson Ltd.

(Formally Prism Cement Ltd.)

Village - Manakhari, Post Bathiya

Distt-Satna (M.P) -485001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 10 day of October 2023.)

As per letter dated 26/04/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number no.F.NO-

L-29011/6/2019-IR(M) dt.26/04/2022 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the demand of the Zila Satna Cement Foundry Khadan Kamgar Union in respect of

Overtime Allowance of 136 Security Guards working in the M/s Ravi Security Organization Pvt. Ltd. under

the principal employer M/s Prism Johnson Limited for the period 31.05.2004 to 30.06.2015 is fair, just and

legal? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the parties filed a copy of memorandum said to be reached at by the

parties and submitted that the matter has been compromised out of court and understating has been reached at

between the parties, hence, there is no dispute left under the reference. It has been prayed that no dispute award be

passed in the light of copy of memorandum filed, which is on record, which shows that the dispute has been set in

between the parties and no dispute remains as such. Hence no dispute award is passed. The award be sent to Central

Government for publication.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 10.10.2023

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1822.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससि िुगािृुर स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और जिन्िुस्ट्तान स्ट्टील वकिसि' यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में

4146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-26/2018) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.11.2023 को प्राप्त

हुआ ा l

[सं. एल -26011/18/2018- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2023

S.O. 1822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 26/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

M/s Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL and Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 17.11.2023.

[No. L-26011/18/2018-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNNEXURE

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. 26 OF 2018

PARTIES: Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union

Vs.

Management of Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen:

Mr. Biswajit Biswas, Joint Secretary of HSWU.

For the Management of DSP:

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Iron and Steel.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

16.10.2023

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-26011/18/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the allegation of Hindustan Steel Workers Union (HSWU) (INTUC), Durgapur vide letter dated

09.01.2015 that to discontinue the operation of Skelp Mill by Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur w.e.f. 01.12.2014 is

violation of Section 25-O of ID Act and Rule 76 C of ID (Central) Rules, 1957 is proper, legal and justified? If yes,

what direction, if any, are necessary in the matter? ”

On receiving Order No. L-26011/18/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018 from the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 26 of 2018 was registered on 19.11.2018

and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit

their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4147

Mr. Madhab Banerjee, learned advocate for Durgapur Steel Plant has appeared but like his earlier practise he

failed to file any written statement or Memorandum of Agreement executed by the Executive Director (Works) of

Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL. No step has been taken by the Joint Secretary, Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union

(INTUC), Durgapur. On repeated calls at 2.40 pm none appeared for the workmen.

Mr. Biswajit Biswas, Joint Secretary (Convener) of Hindustan Steel Workers’ Union filed a written

statement on 19.02.2019 and served copy upon learned advocate for Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL on 03.05.2023.

However, it appears that the concerned union is disinclined to proceed further as I do not find any representation on

their behalf today. Learned advocate for the steel plant is misconceived about representation of party and no effort

taken by the Executive Director (Works), Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL to file written statement or Memorandum of

Agreement with his execution. A Noticee can at best delegate responsibility to any officer for appearance and

evidence but written statement needs to be filed by the Noticee himself. In view of facts and circumstances, the

Reference case is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1823.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड और अन्य के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कायिकताि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिाबाि, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-79/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.11.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-30011/78/2017- आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2023

S.O. 1823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 79/2019) 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 ONGC Limited and others and their workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 17.11.2023.

[No. L-30011/78/2017-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 3^rd October, 2023.

4148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No- 79/2019

1. The Executive Director-Asset Manager,

M/s. ONGC Ltd., Avni Bhavan, 5^th Floor,

Chandkheda, Ahmedabad,

Gujarat, Pin Code – 380 005.

2. The Head, Logistics,

M/s. ONGC Ltd., Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

3. M/s. Ajay Transport Company,

19/3, Near Swati Autolink,

Beside Sardar Patel Ring Road,

Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-382424.

4. M/s. Suresh Oil Field Units & Maintenance Co.,

Behind Andaz Party Plot Lane,

Off S. G. Highway, Mumatpura Road,

Makarba, Ahmedabad-380 058.

5. M/s. Sunrise Contractors Services Pvt. Ltd.,

HO, 7, Kirti Sagar Bunglow, Visnagar Link Road,

Manav Ashram Chowkdi,

Mehsana-384001.

6. M/s. Kartar Road Carriers,

C-14, Soham Complex,

Odhav, Ahmedabad.

7. M/s. Dewanchand Ramsharan Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Navrattam, 2^nd Floor, 69, PDMello Road,

Camac Bunder Junction,

Mumbai-400009.

8. M/s. Sonu Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

412, J. M. Rebello Chowl, Katrak Road,

Vadala (West), Mumbai-400031.

…...…….First Party

The General Secretary,

O.N.G.C. Administrative & Technical Contractor

Workers Association, B-144, Saraswati Nagar,

I.O.C. Road, Chandkheda,

Ahmedabad - 382424.

………….Second Party

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 OrderNo. L-30011/78/2017-

IR(M) dated 23.04.2019 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:

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4149

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of ONGC Administrative & Technical Contractor Workers Association, Ahmedabad for

absorptions of 25 contract workers working as Drivers and Helpers of Tankers (as per list ‘A’ attached) by the

management of ONGC Ltd., Ahmedabad is proper, legal and justified? If so, what relief the disputants are

entitled to and from which date?”

1. The case was taken up today. First Party/employer ONGC is represented through Ld. Counsel

Shri K. V. Gadhia. Remaining FP/employers are not present. Perusal of the record shows that out of 25

workmen 12 workmen namely Avnish Ragbhar shown at Sr. No.12, Bittu Yadav shown at Sr. No.13,

Dasharath Thakor shown at Sr. No.14, Jayprakash Yadav shown at Sr. No.15, Kishan Dev shown at Sr.

No.16, Darmendra Kumar V. shown at Sr. No.17, Vijay Kumar shown at Sr. No.18, Manojkumar shown at

Sr. No.19, Satydev Pal shown at Sr. No.20, Rakesh Pal shown at Sr. No.21, Suraj shown at Sr. No.22 and

Shanabhai P. Zala shown at Sr. No.23 have withdrawn their cases vide order dtd.07.05.2019 passed on Ex.4.

Remaining 13 workmen namely Chavda Kulipsinh P. shown at Sr. No.1, Vaghela Narendra Sinh shown at

Sr. No.2, Thakor Arvindji Dhanji shown at Sr. No.3, Ramaji Jayantiji Thakor shown at Sr. No.4, Bharatbhai

Rataji Vaghela shown at Sr. No.5, Himatji Bhupatji Thakor shown at Sr. No.6, Raval Vikram V shown at Sr.

No.7, Mahendrasinh Dalpat Sinh Vaghela shown at Sr. No.8, Rohitji Fataji Thakor shown at Sr. No.9,

Manjibhai Meena shown at Sr. No.10, Johny Pramad Christian shown at Sr. No.11, Sharabh Katiyar shown

at Sr. No.24 and Devendra Singh B. Chauhan shown at Sr. No.25 are absent despite various opportunity vide

order dt.23.01.2023, 09.02.2023, 09.03.2023 and 24.08.2023. It seems that they are not interested to proceed

further in the matter.

2. Perusal of the record further shows that these 13 absentee workmen have neither appeared nor filed any

statement of their claim. There is no evidence to substantiate their claim under reference. Hence in the

circumstances, reference is answered in negative against the aforesaid 13 absentee workmen for want of

evidence. The award is passed accordingly.

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: 17 नवम् बर. 2023

का.आ. 1824.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

ऋर्भ माबिल्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री भेप लाल के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, उियृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-02/2022) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 17.11.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं.- िेड -16025/04/2023-आईआर(एम)-71]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi the 17th November, 2023

S.O. 1824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 02/2022) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Rishabh Marbles

and Shri Bherulal which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.11.2023.

[No Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-71]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh && f'ko dqekj 'kekZ

2022 I.T.R.(c)

Jh Hks:yky firk dkuth eh.kk mez 45 o"kZ] fuoklh fcy[kkbZ] duqokMk] dkxnj] rglhy dslfj;k th] ftyk&mn;iqj

&&izkFkhZ

4150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izca/kd] +_"kHk ekcZYl] dslfj;k th] ftyk mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ &&foi{kh

mifLFkr %&

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls %& Jh lqHkk"k Jhekyh] vf/koDrk

foi{kh dh vksj ls %& dksbZ mifLFkr ugha] dk;Zokgh ,di{kh;

fnukad 10-10-2023

izkFkhZ Hks:yky dh vksj ls mlds fu;ksDrk _"kHk ekcZYl dslfj;k th ftyk mn;iqj }kjk mldks lsokeqDr dj

fn;s tkus ds dkj.k le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izkFkZuki= is'k fd;k x;k ysfdu le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k foi{kh dh

vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k i{kdkjku esa dksbZ le>kSrk ugha gks ik;k ftl ij izkFkhZ Hks:yky us le>kSrk

dk;Zokgh dks vkxs ugha pykuk tkfgj fd;k rks le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us ,d izek.ki= izkFkhZ dks viuk izkFkZuki= vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; mn;iqj ds le{k izLrqr djus gsrq tkjh fd;kA rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls gLrxr

Dyse izkFkZuki= bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k fd;k x;k tks ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj foi{kh dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA

izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr Dyse izkFkZuki= ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd&izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh ds fu;kstu

esa vkWijsVj ds in ij fnukad 01-01-1997 dks 1500@&:i;s izfrekg ij gqbZA foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa izkFkhZ dh lsok,s lnSo

larks"kizn jgh ftl dkj.k mlds osru esa le; le; ij c<ksrjh dh tkrh jgh vkSj izkFkhZ dk vafre osru 15]000@&:i;s

izfrekg FkkA fnukad 8-1-2022 dks izkFkhZ M;wVh ij x;k rks foi{kh izca/kd }kjk mldks M;wVh ij ysus ls badkj dj fn;k

x;k vkSj mldks ukSdjh ls fudky fn;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks fcuk iwoZ lwpuk fn;s] fcuk vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh

fd;s rFkk fcuk {kfriwfrZ fn;s lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k tks lsokeqfDr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 25,

ds fo:} gksus ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA izkFkhZ ds ckn okys Jfed vHkh Hkh foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa dk;Zjr gS

ftlls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr QLVZ de ykLV xks okys fl}kar ds fo:} gksus ls voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds

fu;kstu esa fujarj 240 fnu ls Hkh vf/kd le; rd izR;sd dSys.Mj o"kZ esa dk;Z fd;k ftlls Hkh izkFkhZ dks fcuk fof/kd

izfdz;k viuk;s lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k tks lsokeqfDr voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA bu vk/kkjksa ij izkFkhZ us foi{kh fu;kstd }kjk dh

xbZ voS/k lsokeqfDr dks fujLr djrs gq, mls lsokeqfDr fnukad 08-01-22 ls fujarj osru] ofj;rk ,oa vU; ykHkksa lfgr

iqu%fu;qfDr fnykus dk vkns'k fn;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA

foi{kh ij uksfVl dh rkehy gks tkus ds mijkar Hkh mldh vksj ls dksbZ U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha vk;k ftl ij

foi{kh ds fo:} ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh ,di{kh; cgl lquh xbZ ,oa i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA

^^vc ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd foi{kh _"kHk ekcZYl] dslfj;k th] ftyk mn;iqj }kjk izkFkhZ Jh Hks:yky firk

dkuth eh.kk] mez 45 o"kZ] fuoklh fcy[kkbZ] duqokMk] dkxnj rglhy dslfj;kth] ftyk mn;iqj¼jkt0½ dks

fnukad 08-01-2022 dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS \ ;fn ugha] rks izkFkhZ D;k jkgr ikus dk

vf/kdkjh gS \

,di{kh; lk{; esa izkFkhZ us viuk 'kiFki= is'k fd;k ftlesa mlus izkFkZuki= esa vafdr rF;ksa dks gh nksgjk;k gS

vkSj izn'kZ 1 yxk;r izn'kZ 3 nLrkost is'k fd;s gSA

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ds [k.Mu esa foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gS ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ

dh v[kafMr jgh lk{; ij vfo'okl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ls iwoZ

izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl ;k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gks] ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; foi{kh dh vkSj ls ugha vkbZ gSA

mDr vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA

izkFkhZ vf/koDrk dh vkSj ls bl lEcU/k esa ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj] osru

ofj;rk ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds lkFk iqu% j[kok;s tkus dk iapkV ikfjr QjekosasA

izkFkhZ dh lk{; ,oa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ] foi{kh QeZ esa dk;Zjr jgk gS vkSj mldks

fnukad 08-1-2022 dks lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;k ftldk dksbZ mfpr dkj.k foi{kh dh vksj ls mifLFkr gksdj ugha crk;k

x;k gSA bu gkykr esa bl izdj.k es U;k;ky; bl er dk gS fd izkFkhZ lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad 08-01-2022 ls

iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dh frfFk rd fiNys osru ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS lkFk gh foi{kh

izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk iqu% lsok esa ysos rFkk ;fn og lsok esa gksrk rks D;k ykHk izkIr djrk os lHkh ykHk Hkh

izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij ,d i{kh; iapkV bl izdkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd &

izkFkhZ Jh Hks:yky iq= dkuth eh.kk dks foi{kh laLFkku izca/kd] _"kHk ekcZYl] dslfj;kth] ftyk mn;iqj¼jkt-½

}kjk fnukad 08-01-2022 dks lsok i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA blfy;s bl voS/k lsok eqfDr ds dkj.k foi{kh

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4151

laLFkku izkFkhZ dks lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk rhu ekg dh vof/k esa iqu% lsok esa ysos rFkk ;fn og lsok esa gksrk rks tks

ykHk izkIr djrk os lHkh ykHk Hkh fn;s tkos lkFk gh foi{kh izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkus dh fnukad 08-01-2022 ls iqu%

lsok esa fy;s tkus dh frfFk rd fiNys osru ds :i esa 50 izfr'kr jkf'k dk Hkqxrku 2 ekg esa djs] vU;Fkk] mDr jkf'k ij

vkns'k dh fnukad ls 7 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt ns; gksxkA

,d i{kh; iapkV izdk'kukFkZ leqfpr ljdkj dks fHktk;k tkosA

iapkV vkt fnukad 10-10-2023 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k A

f'ko dqekj 'kekZ

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 (संिभि

)

dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

22012/110/2011

(सी-एम-II)]

मजणकंिन- एन] उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 16/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/11/2023.

[No. L-22012/110/2011 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 16 OF 2011

PARTIES: Prakash Hela

Vs.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Basudev Choudhury, Adv.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

19.09.2023.

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

4152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No. L-22012/110/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 02.08.2011 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF KHAS KAJORA COLLIERY UNDER KAJORA

AREA OF M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, IN DISMISSING SRI PRAKASH HELA,

UNDERGROUND LOADER, UM No. 555004 W.E.F. 27.07.1995 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED, TO WHAT

RELIEF THE WORKMAN CONCERNED IS ENTITLED TO? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/110/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 02.08.2011 from the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 16 of 2011 was registered on

29.08.2011/09.12.2011 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to

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

witnesses.

2. The workman submitted his written statement on 03.02.2012, wherein he has stated that he was a permanent

employee at Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as

ECL), posted as an Underground Loader having U.M. No. 555004 and worked since 16.07.1992. Owing to his short

height and lean figure he had to work as a “single headed loader” and was not included in any group, nor was he

allowed to go down into the mine for performing his work on the pretext that he was not a member of any group of

loaders in the mine. The aggrieved workman claimed that he was not allowed to join his duty by the Assistant

Manager / Pit Manager and they forcibly marked him absent from duty for months together. A Charge Sheet was

issued to him on 29.11.1994 on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. Prakash Hela explained the situation

to the Mine Manager and requested him to deploy him as a sweeper in the mines but he was not allowed and a Second

Charge Sheet was issued to him on 13.03.1995. The workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding initiated against

him in illegal manner and he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 26.07.1995. The workman filed Mercy Petitions on

23.07.1998 and 01.04.2008 for reconsideration of his reinstatement but the management of the company turned down

his prayer by way of letter bearing no. KA/Dy.CPM/C-6/34/1310 dated 21.10.2010. The dismissed workman raised

this Industrial Dispute and prayed for necessary order for his reinstatement in service.

3. The management has contested the Industrial Dispute by filing written statement on 24.07.2013, wherein it is

contended that Prakash Hela was dismissed from his service due to his unauthorized absence from duty from

05.03.1994 for which a Charge Sheet bearing no. KKC/P&IR/C-6/95/AB dated 13.03.1995 was issued as per

provision of standing order applicable to the establishment. The charged workman failed to submit any satisfactory

reply for which a Departmental Enquiry was held for the charge levelled against him. An Enquiry Officer was

appointed for that purpose and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry on 16.05.1995, in which the workman duly

participated along with his co-worker. Reasonable opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case in

accordance to the principles of natural justice but he was found guilty of charges of misconduct and was dismissed

from service by an Order vide letter no. KA/PM/C-6/10/1370/4035 dated 27.07.1995. It is the case of the

management of ECL that Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of dismissal in accordance with the gravity

of misconduct which is proportionate to the nature of dereliction of his duty. It is further urged that the fairness of

Enquiry Proceeding is required to be decided as a preliminary issue and if the Tribunal find that enquiry was unfair

for any reason, the management may be given an opportunity to establish the charges on merit.

4. The aggrieved workman in support of his case adduced evidence as workman witness – 1. I find from the record

that Prakash Hela has filed an affidavit-in-chief reiterating his case in the written statement. In his cross-examination

the workman deposed that he was absent from duty and he was not given any Underground job for which he made

representation before the management to provide job as a sweeper. He also denied that he absented from duty

intentionally. The workman admitted that he was dismissed from service after holding enquiry. In course of his re-

examination-in-chief on recall the workman produced the following documents :

(i)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 16.07.1992 as Exhibit W-1. It appears from the order that the

workman was appointed as an Underground Loader at Pit No. 11 of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL and

his date of birth is 03.07.1969.

(ii)

Photocopy of the letter of dismissal from service dated 27.07.1995 issued by the General Manager,

Kajora Area of ECL as Exhibit W-2

5. The management examined Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel) at Khas Kajora Colliery as management

witness – 1. He has filed an affidavit-in-chief in support of the case of ECL. In his affidavit-in-chief management

witness stated that Prakash Hela, ex-Underground Loader of Khas Kajora Colliery was absent from his duty from

05.03.1994 without any intimation or permission of the Colliery authority for which Charge Sheet was issued against

him for misconduct under Section 17(i)(n) of the Model Standing Order. The charged workman failed to submit any

satisfactory reply and a Departmental Enquiry was held in respect of the charge. After providing reasonable

opportunity to the workman to defend his case, the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty for the charge of

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4153

misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority after considering Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding, Report, and other

connecting papers, dismissed the workman w.e.f. 27.07.1995. In course of examination the management has

produced the following documents:

(i)

Photocopy of the Notice of Enquiry dated 04.05.1995 is produced as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Photocopy of the Charge Sheet dated 13.03.1995 issued to the workman as Exhibit M-2.

(iii) Photocopy of the letter of appointment of Enquiry Officer dated 18.05.1995 as Exhibit M-3.

(iv) Photocopy of the Report of Enquiry Proceeding with findings collectively in three pages as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Photocopy of the letter of dismissal dated 27.07.1995 issued by the General Manager, Kajora Area as

Exhibit M-5.

6. The point for consideration is whether the dismissal of Prakash Hela from service was legal and justified.

7. Mr. Basudev Choudhury, learned advocate for the workman argued that the Enquiry Proceeding has been carried

out in an arbitrary manner without giving opportunity to the workman to defend his case. Furthermore, the order of

dismissal issued by the General Manager is not sustainable under the law as he is not the appointing authority.

Learned advocate referred to the office order dated 16.07.1992 (Exhibit W-1) wherein, it appears that the order of

appointment was issued by the Agent of Khas Kajora Colliery. It is argued on behalf of the workman in the Charge

Sheet issued by the management that the period of absence has not been mentioned. Therefore, there is no specific

case disclosed against the workman about the alleged misconduct. Learned advocate argued that mere statement in the

Charge Sheet to the effect that the attendance of a workman is poor does not specifically disclose a clear charge

against him. Therefore, it would transpire that proper opportunity was not provided to the workman to defend any

charge. It is urged that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the vague charge and the concerned workman

should be reinstated in service.

8. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL argued that the workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding, where it

was clearly explained to him that he absented from duty from 05.03.1994 to 26.11.1994 and the same has been

admitted by the workman. Learned advocate argued that fair opportunity was given to the workman for defending his

case but he has failed to explain the reason for his unauthorized absent. It is claimed that the charge of misconduct

due to unauthorized absence is clearly established against the workman for which he has been dismissed by the

controlling authority.

9. I have gone through the written statement and evidence adduced by both the parties and also considered the

argument advanced by the learned advocates for the workman and management of ECL. The main contention of the

workman is that due to his short height and frail health the Pit Manager did not permit him to enter mine for

performing underground job and had to function as a single headed loader. Further contention of the workman is that

his attendance was not recorded though he reported for duty. I find from the record that the workman did not raise

any Industrial Dispute for such alleged restrainment by the management of ECL preventing him from joining his

duty. Therefore, such contention is not acceptable. The Charge Sheet in this case has been produced as Exhibit M-2

which disclose that the attendance of the workman was poor and he had attended duty for only twenty-six days in the

year 1993 and four days in the year 1994. Thereby, he has committed misconduct as per Section 17(1)(d) of the

Model Standing Orders. The workman in his evidence stated that he was unable to recollect whether he has

participated in the Enquiry Proceeding or not. However, the Report of Enquiry Proceeding produced by the

management (Exhibit M-4) reveals that Prakash Hela had been examined as a witness and he stated that he could not

attended his duty from 05.03.1994 to 26.11.1994 on account of mental disturbance. In course of his cross-

examination, he was asked as to why he did not report to any Medical Officer for his treatment and why he did not

inform the authority about his absence. In reply, the workman could not give any cogent answer and admitted that he

did not do so. The Enquiry Report reveals that the charge had been read over and explained to Prakash Hela in Hindi

and was asked whether he accepted the charge levelled against him, but he denied the same. After examining the

witness and going through the material statement and documents the Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of

misconduct and the charge of unauthorized absence was established against him. There is material to indicate that the

workman did not perform his duty diligently and his unauthorized absence from duty was proved in course of Enquiry

Proceeding. Consequent to such Enquiry Proceeding the General Manager of Kajora Area of ECL in his letter dated

27.07.1995 dismissed Prakash Hela from service for gross misconduct. Having considered the contents of letter

resulting in dismissal of workman I find that no formal order of dismissal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority /

Controlling Authority. It also appears to me that the management of ECL did not issue any Second Show Cause

Notice to the workman nor supply him with Report of Enquiry Proceeding, inviting his response to the same before

taking any final decision.

4154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. In the context of non-issuance of Second Show Cause Notice it would be pertinent to place reliance on the

observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan

Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the law as follows:

“When the Inquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of

the Inquiry Officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the charges

levelled against him. A denial of the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority takes its decision on the

charges, is denial of opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of principles of natural

justice.”

11. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakaran [1993 (3) SLR 532 (SC)], the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on further examination laid down the following guidelines and direction :

“It is evident where the Inquiry Officer is other than the Disciplinary Authority, the disciplinary proceeding break

into two stages. The first stage when the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion on the basis of evidence,

Inquiry Officer’s report and the delinquent employee’s reply to it. The second stage begins when the Disciplinary

Authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusion. If the Disciplinary Authority decides to drop the

proceeding, the second stage is not even reached. The employee’s right to receive the report is thus, a part of the

reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of inquiry. If he right is denied to him, he is in effect

denied the right to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceeding.”

12. In this context Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as CIL) issued a Circular bearing No. CIL C-

5A(VI)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994, wherein referring to the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India the Director (P&IR), CIL clearly indicated that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Ali’s case would operate

prospectively to the orders of punishment passed after 20.11.1990. The Enquiry Report should be supplied to the

charged employee and while communicating the final order it must be mentioned that the representation of the

employee was taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.

13. In view of the binding nature of the above referred decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Circular

issued by CIL on 12.05.1994 there is no escape from service of a Second Show Cause Notice to the delinquent

employee along with copy of Enquiry Proceeding and thereafter on considering his representation, if any, imposed a

suitable punishment against him. In the instant case the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are different

persons therefore, the workman ought to have been provided with an opportunity to make his representation before

imposing a harsh punishment of dismissal against him. The mandates of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have not

been followed by the management of ECL in the present case, thereby the second part of the proceeding leading to

dismissal of the employee has been vitiated. When the Enquiry Proceeding is itself vitiated for want of mandatory

compliance, it is immaterial whether any representation or appeal has been preferred by the workman within forty-

five days from the date of dismissal of the workman according to the Certified Standing Order of the company

specially when there is no limitation in raising the Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14. Under the foregoing facts and circumstances and the guiding legal principles set out in the above decisions, I find

and hold that the Letter of dismissal dated 27.07.1995 of Prakash Hela issued by the General Manager of Kajora Area

of ECL is arbitrary, violative of natural justice, improper and bad in law and the same is hereby set aside.

15. The General Manager is directed to serve a Second Show Cause Notice to Prakash Hela and supply him with

Report of Enquiry Proceeding with Findings within one month from the receipt of the Notification of the Award,

calling upon him to submit his response / reply within fifteen (15) days and after considering the same, along with

other relevant materials pass a fresh order which shall be communicated to the workman within fifteen (15) days from

the date of Order. The entire exercise shall be completed within two (2) months after receipt of the Notification of the

Award. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly allowed in favour of the workman. In default, Prakash Hela shall be

treated to be in service thereafter and his period of absence shall be treated as dies non.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the letter of dismissal of Prakash Hela dated 27.07.1995 issued by the General Manager of Kajora Area

of ECL is arbitrary, bad in law and hereby set aside. The General Manager shall issue a Second Show Cause Notice to

Prakash Hela and supply a copy of Report of Enquiry Proceeding to him with Findings, seeking his response / reply

and after considering all materials and reply submitted by the workman, shall pass a fresh Order in respect of the

finality of Departmental Proceeding. The Order shall be communicated to the workman within fifteen days from such

order. The question of reinstatement is to be decided accordingly thus the Industrial Dispute is allowed in favour of

Prakash Hela and against the management of ECL on contest. Let an award be drawn up in the light of my above

findings. If the management of ECL does not follow the aforesaid time frame, Prakash Hela shall be treated to be in

his service on expiry of the time limit set out and the period of his absence shall be treated as dies non. Let copies of

the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for

information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4155

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 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 ¼संिभि

/

dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/6/2007

(सी-एम-II)]

मजणकंिन- एन] उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 39/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/11/2023

[No. L-22012/6/2007 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Deputy 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. 39 OF 2007

PARTIES: Mannan Sharif

Vs.

Management of Kumardihi “A” Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Sushil Banerjee, Union representative.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.

INDUSTRY

Coal.

STATE

West Bengal.

Dated

11.10.2023

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-22012/6/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Kumardihi “A” Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Kumardihi A Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in deducting the attendance bonus paid for the period from 19.6.2005 to 23.8.2005 from

the monthly wages of Sri Manan Sarif is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/6/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 29.06.2007 from the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 39 of 2007 was registered

on 03.05.2007 and an order was passed for 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. Goswami, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up

today for evidence of workman witness. Notice was issued to Mannan Sharif, aggrieved workman under registered

4156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

post but on repeated calls at 12.40 pm none appeared for the workman. The General Secretary, Ukhra Colliery

Mazdoor Union (INTUC) is not available

3. After registration of this case on 03.05.2007 written statement was submitted by the union on behalf of the

workman on 19.11.2015 and the management also filed their written statement on 06.12.2016. After several

opportunities granted to the workman, no evidence has been adduced till date. In my considered view the workman is

disinclined to proceed for which he has not appeared after issuance of Notice on different dates. The Industrial

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

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 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 ¼संिभि

/

dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

22012/152/2013

(सी-एम- II)]

मजणकंिन- एन] उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 02/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/11/2023

[No. L-22012/152/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Deputy 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. 02 OF 2014

PARTIES: Lakhi Chandra Bhuia

Vs.

Management of Nimcha Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4157

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

06.09.2023

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-22012/152/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17.12.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area, M/s. E. C. Limited in

dismissing the workman Shri Lakhi Chandra Bhuia, Surface Trammer with effect from 1.7.2011 only on the

ground of absenteeism is justified? What relief the workman is entitled for? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/152/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 17.12.2013 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 02 of 2014 was registered on

14.02.2014 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case

is fixed up today for appearance of the dismissed workman, Lakhi Chandra Bhuia and for his cross-examination. Mr.

Sumit Choudhary, Management Witness who has filed affidavit-in-chief is present. On repeated call at 1:00

PM none appeared for Lakhi Chandra Bhuia, the dismissed workman. In compliance with order dated 04.07.2023

Notice under registered post was issued to the dismissed workman at his address but he did not turn up.

After registration of this case on 14.02.2014 Notice were issued to the parties and management as well as the

workman filed their written statements. However, no evidence has been adduced by the workman nor did he appear to

meet the counter story of the management. Under such circumstance I am of the considered view that dismissed

workman is not inclined to proceed further. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly disposed of in the form of a No

Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in light of my observations in respect of the above Reference. Let

copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi

for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 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 ¼संिभि

/

dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la--,y-22012/340/2004

(सी-एम-II)]

मजणकंिन- एन] उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 68/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/11/2023

[No. L-22012/340/2004 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

4158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 68 OF 2005

PARTIES: Shri Shyam Sunder Bouri

(Represented by legal heirs Smt. Lakhi Bouri and others)

Vs.

Management of Patmohna Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.10.2023

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-22012/340/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 21.07.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Patmohna Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Patmohna Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields

Limited in dismissing Sh. Shyam Sunder Bouri from services w.e.f. 22.12.2000 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the individual is entitled?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/340/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 21.07.2005 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 68 of 2005 was registered on

17.08.2005 and an order was passed for 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.

After several dates fixed for appearance, Management filed their written statement on 07.08.2006 through

their advocate Shri Pijush Kanti Goswami. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the then General Secretary of the union appeared for

the first time on 13.10.2009 representing the workman. On 17.03.2015 a substitution petition was filed by the union

representative on behalf of 1. Smt Lakhi Bouri (wife), 2. Rohit Bouri (son), 3. Tulu Bouri, 4. Manu Bouri, 5. Shilpi

Bouri, being married daughters of Shyam Sunder Bouri, the dismissed workman. In the petition it is disclosed that

Shyam Sunder Bouri died on 28.02.2008 leaving behind the aforesaid persons as his legal heirs and the name of the

said petitioners are required to be substituted in place of the name of the deceased employee. On 09.09.2015 the

prayer for substitution was allowed. It appears from the record that since appearing in this Industrial Dispute

proceeding, the union representative did not file any written statement. After substitution of legal heirs of deceased

employee on 09.09.2015, the case was fixed for evidence of workman witness without disclosure of any specific case

on behalf of the workman.

In gist, the fact of the case as may be derived from the written statement filed by the management is that,

Shyam Sunder Bouri was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited and was posted at Patmohna Colliery.

Due to his unauthorized absence from 11.08.1999, he was Charge Sheeted on 24.01.2000. No reply to the Charge

Sheet was submitted by the workman nor did he participate in the departmental enquiry held against him. Reasonable

opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and notice of enquiry was also issued but the workman did

not appear. As a result, the enquiry proceeding was held ex-parte. After completion of hearing, management found the

workman guilty of charge of misconduct and submitted it’s report. The competent authority on perusing the enquiry

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4159

report and considering the gravity of misconduct served a notice seeking explanation before inflicting any

punishment. The workman did not respond. The management therefore had no occasion to show leniency and the

workman was dismissed from the service according to the provisions of the standing order. A letter of dismissal

bearing Ref. No. BMP/C-6/12-A/1677 dated 22.12.2000 was issued to the workman. For the first time, union raised

an Industrial Dispute regarding dismissal only on 02.04.2004, after passage of three years and three months, without

having any reasons for delay. It is the case of the management that the conduct of the workman could not be mended

and he does not deserve any leniency for his unauthorized absence. The workman is earning his livelihood from some

other source and is not entitled to any monetary relief. On the basis of such contentions, the management prayed that

the dismissal of the workman may be considered to be justified and legal and that he is not entitled to any relief.

Smt. Lakhi Bouri, the widow of Shyam Sunder Bouri submitted her affidavit-in-chief on 07.04.2016 where

she has stated that her husband was a permanent employee at Patmohna Colliery as Trammer, having U.M. No.

134046. He was unable to attend his duty from 11.08.1999 due to his illness. After his recovery from illness he

reported for duty but was not allowed to join. The management issued Charge Sheet to her husband but the same was

not supplied to him due to which he could not submit his reply. According to her, the management conducted an ex

parte enquiry and decided to dismiss her husband by order No. Pd/C-6/00/36/3062 dated 14/18.12.2000. She further

contended that no second show cause notice was issued to her husband before his dismissal and the management has

violated the guidelines set by Hon’ble Supreme Court. She has also stated that the punishment of dismissal was

disproportionate and such extreme punishment should not have been imposed for absence from duty for a period of

five months and thirteen days only. An Industrial Dispute was thereafter raised by her husband through Koyala

Mazdoor Congress which ended in a failure and Ministry of Labour referred this Industrial Dispute before CGIT-

cum-LC, Asansol for adjudication. During pendency of case at CGIT-cum-LC, Asansol, her husband died on

28.02.2008 leaving behind Lakhi Bouri as widow, Rohit Bouri as son and three daughters, namely Tulu Bouri, Manu

Bouri and Shilpi Bouri. She asserted that her husband had no source of income for maintaining his family and faced

hardship and starvation. She claimed that the order of dismissal passed against her husband should be declared illegal

and set aside and he should be treated to have been in employment of the company and furthermore he should be

considered to have died while in service of the company and therefore one dependent of Shyam Sunder Bouri should

be provided employment as per provision of NCWA. No separate written statement has been filed on behalf of the

workman.

During evidence of workman witness, Lakhi Bouri (WW-1) was cross-examined where she deposed that her

husband was medically treated by private doctors and that her husband was suffering from illness for five years prior

to his dismissal. She denied the suggestion of the management that her husband was not suffering from any illness or

he was not being treated by any doctor. In course of cross-examination, no question was put to the witness regarding

service of Charge Sheet, notice of enquiry or second show cause notice. There is no iota of evidence in the cross-

examination of the management to suggest that the deceased person or his family members were aware of the Charge

Sheet or initiation of departmental proceedings against Shyam Sunder Bouri.

Rohit Bouri, the son of the deceased workman has been examined as another witness and he was cross-

examined on 31.03.2023. In his evidence-in-chief he deposed that his father committed suicide in their house on 2008

and produced death registration certificate as Exhibit W-1. He stated that due to unauthorized absence from duty, his

father was dismissed from the service and the instant case is for the purpose of getting employment in place of his

deceased father. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he is not aware about the number of days his father

attended duty before dismissal. The evidence of Rohit Bouri appears to be very formal in nature and instead of

throwing any light on the reason of absence of his father from attending duty, he has come forward to claim

employment in place of his deceased father.

The management of ECL examined Rahul Panwar as MW-1. In his affidavit-in-chief, the witness stated that

Shyam Sunder Bouri absented from duty from 11.08.1999 to 24.01.2000 for which he was chargesheeted. The

workman did not reply to the chargesheet as such notice of enquiry was sent to the workman at his home address but

he did not appear. The enquiry proceeding was held ex parte against the workman as he did not participate. The

management produced the following documents :

(i)

A copy of Charge Sheet is marked as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Copies of notices of enquiry issued to the workman for his departmental enquiry are marked as Exhibit

M-2 and Exhibit M-3.

(iii)

Copy of Office Order dated 24.02.2000 by which an Enquiry Officer was appointed for the departmental

enquiry is produced as Exhibit M- 4.

(iv)

Enquiry proceeding collectively in four pages is marked as Exhibit M- 5.

(v)

A copy of second show cause notice issued to the workman is produced as Exhibit M- 6.

4160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(vi)

Photocopy of acknowledgement card and the envelope in which the notice of enquiry was sent is marked

as Exhibit M-7.

(vii)

Copy of order of dismissal of Shyam Sunder Bouri from service dated 19.12.2000 is produced as Exhibit

M- 8

(viii) Letter communicating dismissal of service of Shyam Sunder Bouri dated 22.12.2000, as Exhibit M- 9.

In course of cross-examination, witness deposed that he is unable to show any document that the concerned

employee received the chargesheet. The witness denied that the dismissal of workman from service was illegal.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative arguing the case on behalf of the dismissed employee submitted

that the management has arbitrarily dismissed the workman without service of Charge Sheet, enquiry notice or the

enquiry proceeding to the workman before terminating his service. It is argued that such act on the part of

management is illegal and the dismissal of workman is liable to be set aside and he should be considered to be in

service at the time of his death on 28.02.2008. The union representative urged that since the workman has died in

course of proceedings, the management of company should pay full back wages to his wife and other legal heirs.

In reply, Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that fair and reasonable

opportunity was given to the workman to appear and face the enquiry proceeding but he preferred to remain silent

without participating in the enquiry. It is submitted that the charge levelled against the workman for his unauthorized

absence from 11.08.1999 till issuance of Charge Sheet on 24.01.2000 has not been denied and no material evidence

has been brought forward to dispute the charge. Learned advocate submitted that proper notice for enquiry was issued

to the workman at his residential address at Village – Ranadanga, P.O. – Kalipahari, District – Burdwan but he neither

appeared nor sought any accommodation. The management of the company undertook to proceed exparte against the

workman for his unauthorized absence. The Enquiry officer in his report has stated that he served five notices of

enquiry and fixed several dates for the purpose of holding enquiry but the workman did not turn up nor did he submit

any information for his failure to attend. The enquiry was held in the Office of the Agent where Mr. Goutam

Banerjee, Sr. PO was present along with witnesses namely Sri Jagatram Chatterjee and Sri Somnath Chatterjee, Bill

Clerk and Leave Clerk respectively. On considering their statement, the Enquiry Officer observed that the previous

record of attendance of chargesheeted employee revealed that he committed misconduct under Sec 26(29) of C.S.O.,

by absenting himself from his duty from 11.08.1999 to 04.09.2000, causing dislocation of company’s work and

inconvenience to the fellow workers. Accordingly, it was held by the Enquiry Officer that the charge was established

against the workman beyond doubt. Following the enquiry, the report was submitted to the Agent, BMP Group of

Mines for further action. Learned advocate for the management referred to Exhibit M-5, observation of Enquiry

Officer and second show cause notice (Exhibit M-6). It is submitted that the final notice of enquiry dated

14/16.08.2000 was sent to Shyam Sunder Bouri under Registered Post but the same was returned with an

endorsement “Refused”.

10.

It is the case of the management that after considering the departmental proceedings and other relevant

documents, the General Manager directed dismissal of Shyam Sunder Bouri with immediate effect (Exhibit M-8). The

Agent, BMP Group of Mines communicated the order of dismissal to the workman by letter dated 22.12.2000

(Exhibit M-9). It is argued on behalf of management that workman serving the company is required to ensure his

attendance and in case of any inability to attend his duty the workman must inform the management so that there is no

dislocation of work in the premises of the company for sudden unauthorized absence. In the instant case, the workman

neither turned up nor did he participate in the proceeding or seek any accommodation in the enquiry proceeding. The

workman did not assign any reason for his absence. Therefore, the order of dismissal is appropriate and the same

should not be interfered with.

11.

I have considered the fact and circumstances in this case and the evidence adduced by the parties. Instant

Industrial Dispute has been raised by Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Worker’s union after more than four years from the

date of dismissal of the workman. In course of the Industrial Dispute, the workman died and his legal heirs have been

substituted. The workman’s union did not file any written statement in support of their case nor have they produced

any medical documents to establish that Shyam Sunder Bouri was suffering from any illness during the period of his

absence from 11.08.1999 till date of submission of Charge Sheet on 24.01.2000 or thereafter. Workman is

accountable to his employer and it is essential for him to inform the reason of his absence and take necessary leave so

that regular work in employer’s establishment is not disrupted. In the instant case, the conduct of Shyam Sunder Bouri

appears to be nonchalant as he neither reported for his duty nor did he assign any reason for his long absence. For the

purpose of smooth running of company affairs, the management issued Charge Sheet (Exhibit M-1) to the workman

but no reply was submitted. Notice of enquiry under Registered Post was issued to the workman on 02.03.2000 and

14.08.2000 fixing time, date and venue for departmental enquiry. The workman appears to have refused to receive the

notice as it is evident from Exhibit M-7. A second show cause notice was issued to the workman on 18.09.2000 which

was communicated to him under Registered post at his residential address (Exhibit M-6). The workman did not

respond to the Notice. Having considered different documents relating to enquiry proceeding, the competent

Authority expressed his decision to dismiss the workman from service. Such order of General Manager, Sodepur Area

contained in his letter dated 14.08.2000 was addressed to the Agent, BMP Group of Mines (Exhibit M-8) and

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4161

subsequently a letter of dismissal was issued by the Agent to the workman. In course of cross-examination of

management witness, a copy of Notesheet was initiated by the Agent proposing dismissal of the chargesheeted

employee has been produced as Exhibit W-2. From the said document it would appear that the Notesheet was initiated

on 14.11.2000 after issuance of second show cause notice on 18.09.2000. The Notesheet reveals that the matter was

taken up by different rungs of the management and ultimately the General Manager directed the dismissal of the

workman. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the process of initiation, conduction and decision made in the

enquiry proceeding. In my considered view the decision of the management to dismiss Shyam Sunder Bouri from his

service on account of unauthorized absence for a long period is found just and appropriate and I find no reason to

interfere with the order of dismissal. Accordingly, I hold that legal heirs of Shyam Sunder Bouri are not entitled to

any back wages from the date of dismissal. The Industrial Dispute is thus dismissed on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

an Award be drawn up against the workman in the light of my above decision. The dismissal of the workman from

service by the management is justified and calls for no interference. Let a copy of this Award be communicated to the

Ministry for information and Notification

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 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 (संिभि

/

) 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 20thNovember, 2023

S.O. 1829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 06/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/11/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

APPLICATION NO. 06 OF 2018

PARTIES: Bideshi Kora.

Vs.

General Manager, Sodepur Area of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Asit Kumar Mukherjee, adv.

Ms. Jayasree Mukherjee, adv.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

13.09.2023

4162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This Application raising Industrial Dispute by Bideshi Kora, dismissed workman against the General

Manager, Sodepur Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited is fixed up today for evidence. On repeated calls at 12:25 PM

none appeared for Bideshi Kora. Mr. Asit Kumar Mukherjee and Smt. Jayasree Mukherjee, advocates for the

petitioner are found absent. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate who has filed written statement on behalf of the Agent /

Chief Manager (M), BMP Group is present.

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

Officer under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 dated 14.11.2018, disclosing that Assistant Secretary of

Colliery Mazdoor Sabha (CITU) filed an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute (Amendment)

Act, 2010 before the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol consequent upon the

termination of Kartick Turi, Ex-Trammer from the services w.e.f. 27.07.2018 by the Management of Patmohna

Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. As no settlement was be reached within the mandatory

period of forty-five (45) days a Certificate was issued in favour of the Union to enable them to approach the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court.

On a perusal of the petition filed by Bideshi Kora it appears to me that the General Manager, Sodepur Area

of Eastern Coalfields Limited was arrayed as the opposite party and neither the Agent of BMP Group nor the Chief

Manager (M) of BMP Group of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Written statement filed on behalf of the management is

misconceived and hence, not accepted. Vokalatnama has been filed by Mr. P. K. Goswami in this application and the

same has been issued by the Chief Manager (M) of BMP Group instead of G.M., Sodepur Area.

In his application, workman prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him, for his

reinstatement, payment of full back wages and other benefits w.e.f. 02.05.2016 and to declare the period of his

absence as ‘dies non’ so that there is no breakage of service. I also take note that instead of filing a petition under

section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner has filed the application under section 33A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which relates to change in condition of service during pendency of proceeding. The

advocate sought for accommodation on two consecutive dates i.e. on 28.12.2022 and 13.03.2023 for amending the

application. Till date no such application has been filed and this Tribunal is constrained to fix the case today for

evidence.

On a perusal of record, I find that the dismissed workman is not diligent in proceeding with this case and

advocates are also found absent. Under such circumstances, application seeking relief for setting aside the order of

dismissal and reinstatement is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award for default.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above the Application under sub-section 2 and 3 of

section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 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 (संिभि

/

)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

-22013/01/2023-

(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 07/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4163

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/11/2023

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

APPLICATION NO. 07 OF 2018

PARTIES: Biju Das.

Vs.

General Manager, Sodepur Area of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Asit Kumar Mukherjee, adv.

Ms. Jayasree Mukherjee, adv.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. Manipadma Banerjee, adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

13.09.2023

AWARD

This Application under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed by Biju Das, dismissed workman against the

General Manager, Sodepur Area, Eastern Coalfields Limited is fixed up today for evidence of workman. On repeated

call at 12:35 PM none appeared for Biju Das. Mr. Asit Kumar Mukherjee and Smt. Jayasree Mukherjee, advocates for

the petitioner are found absent. Mr. Manipadma Banerjee, learned advocate who has filed written statement on behalf

of the Agent / Chief Manager (M), BMP Group of ECL is present.

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

Officer under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 dated 14.11.2018, disclosing that Assistant Secretary of

Colliery Mazdoor Sabha (CITU) filed an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment)

Act, 2010 before the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol consequent upon the

termination of Kartick Turi, Ex-Trammer from the services w.e.f. 28.07.2018 by the Management of Patmohna

Colliery under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. As no settlement was be reached within the mandatory

period of forty-five (45) days a Certificate was issued in favour of the Union to enable them to approach the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court.

On a perusal of the petition filed by Biju Das it appears to me that the General Manager, Sodepur Area of

Eastern Coalfields Limited was arrayed as the opposite party and neither the Agent of BMP Group nor the Chief

Manager (M) of BMP Group of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Written statement filed on behalf of the management is

misconceived and hence, not accepted.

In his application, workman prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him, for his

reinstatement, payment of full back wages and other benefits w.e.f. 26.05.2016 and to declare the period of his

absence as ‘dies-non’ so that there is no breakage of service. I also take note that instead of filing a petition under

section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner has filed the application under section 33A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which relates to change in condition of service during pendency of proceeding. The

advocate sought for accommodation on two consecutive dates i.e. on 28.12.2022 and 13.03.2023 for amending the

4164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

application. Till date no such application has been filed and this Tribunal is constrained to fix the case today for

evidence of workman.

On a perusal of record, I find that the dismissed workman is not diligent in proceeding with this case and

advocates are also found absent. Under such circumstances, application seeking relief for setting aside the order of

dismissal and reinstatement is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award for default.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above the Application under sub-section 2 and 3 of

section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2023

का.आ. 1831.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

प्रबंि गिदेशक-सीईओ/पररयोजिा प्रबंिक, ददल्ली मेट्रो रेल कॉपोरेशि, बाराखंभा रोड, िई ददल्ली; गिदेशक मैससस केएसजे

डायिेगमक्स गसक्योररटी प्रा. गलगमटेड, कापसहेडा एक्सटेंशि कापसहेडा, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और

श्री लाल ससंह, कामिार, द्वारा- अगखल भारतीय जिरल मजदूर ट्रेड यूगियि, कालकाजी, िई ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में

गिर्दसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-1 िई ददल्ली पंचाट(संदभस संख्या 33/2022) को जैसा दक

अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है,प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 20.11.2023को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[ सं. एल -42011/202/2021-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20thNovember, 2023

S.O. 1831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Managing Director-CEO/Project Manager, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi;

The Director M/s KSJ Dynamics Security Pvt. Ltd.,Kapashera Exten. Kapashera, New Delhi, and Shri Lal

Singh, Worker, through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.11.2023.

[No. L-42011/202/2021-IR (DU)]

D.K.HIMANSH, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVENRMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI-1, ROOM NO.

207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 33/2022

Sh. Lal Singh S/o Sh. O.P. Singh,

Rept. By All India General Mazdoor Trade Union

Regd. Office, 170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110001

…..…….Workman

Versus

The Managing Director-CEO/Project Manager

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Head Office =, Metro Bhawan,

Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4165

The Director M/s KSJ Dynamics Security Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 273, 2^nd Floor, Near SBI Old Delhi Gurgaon Road,

Kapashera Exten. Kapashera,

New Delhi-110037.

………..Managements

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No. L-

42011/202/2021 (IR(DU) of dated 31.01.2022 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the demand of All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) vide letter dated 08.04.2021 in

respect of Sh. Lal Singh against the managements of M/s KSJ Dynamics Security Pvt Ltd., (contractor)

under Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for bonus for the year 2019-2020 is proper, legal and justified?

If so, what relief the said worker is entitled to?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days

of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the

postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that

the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the managements, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Justice Sh. VIKAS KUNAVAR SHRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2023

का.आ. 1832.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मैससस िेगल्कि टेलीकॉम इंफ्रा प्राइिेट गलगमटेड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों श्री जाहर गमत्रा, कामिार,के बीच अिुबंि में

गिर्दसष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह-श्रम न्द्यायालय-आसिसोल पंचाट (संदभस संख्या 27 OF 2022) को जैसा

दक अिुलग्नक में ददखाया िया है,प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 07.11.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. एल -40012/2/2022-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27 OF 2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court - Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited, and Shri Jahar Mitra, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.11.2023.

[No. L-40012/2/2022-IR (DU) ]

D. K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

4166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 27 OF 2022

PARTIES: Jahar Mitra

Vs.

Management of M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Jahar Mitra, workman (in person).

For the Management:

Mr. Rajen Nayek, Management Representative of

M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited.

INDUSTRY:

Telecommunications.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

11.10.2023

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-40012/2/2022-IR(DU) dated 26.05.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited, Kolkata and their workman for adjudication

by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited, Kolkata in

superannuating Shri Jahar Mitra, Mobile Tower Assistant, w.e.f. 20.05.2021 vide their Notice dated

01/04/2021, as raised by Security & Allied Workers’ Union West Bengal, Kolkata vide letter dated

28.05.2021 is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief Shri Jahar Mitra is entitled to? What other

directions, if any, are necessary in the matter? ”

On receiving Order No. L-40012/2/2022-IR(DU) dated 26.05.2022 from the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 27 of 2022 was registered on 13.06.2022

/ 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for 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.

This Industrial Dispute is fixed up today for appearance of the workman and filing written statement. Mr.

Jahar Mitra, aggrieved workman and an employee of M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited has appeared in

person.

After receipt of the said Order, a Reference case has been registered and Notice was issued to M/s. Welkin

Telecom Infra Private Limited and the General Secretary, Security and Allied Workers’ Union (INTUC). M/s. Welkin

Telecom Infra Private Limited have filed their written statement on 11.04.2023 but neither the workman nor the union

has filed written statement.

M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited, the employer of Jahar Mitra in their written statement have

stated that the date of birth of the workman was recorded as 21.05.1963 and as per the Bengal Industrial Employment

(standing order) Rules 1946, date of retirement of Jahar Mitra was 20.05.2021 after he attained the age of 58 years. A

letter of superannuation was sent to him on 01.04.2021. After receipt of letter of superannuation Jahar Mitra corrected

his Aadhaar card and submitted a copy of his Aadhaar Card to the company on 13.08.2021 which is not acceptable

and employer company urged that the case has been filed on suppression of material facts for unlawful gain and same

should be dismissed.

Jahar Mitra has not filed any written statement but he claims to be in service till 21.05.2023. The moot

question is whether the Industrial Dispute raised by the employee working in a private company is maintainable

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol. The provision of Section 2(a)(i) of

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4167

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly lays down that : “appropriate government means in relation to any

industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government”.

The present case is not covered by Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the concerned

petitioner employee was employed under M/s. Welkin Telecom Infra Private Limited and the employer industry is not

under the control of the Central Government or is not concerning any such controlled industry specified by the

Central Government. Section 2(a)(ii) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down that in relation to any other

Industrial Disputes, the State Government is the appropriate Government.

Under such circumstance I am of the considered view that this Industrial Dispute referred to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol is misconceived and the same cannot be entertained by this forum.

Petitioner, Jahar Mitra is granted liberty to move to the appropriate forum i.e. the State Industrial Tribunal for his

redressal. Matter is accordingly disposed of.

Hence,

ORDERED

that an Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2023

का.आ. 1833.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष, केंरीय माध्यगमक गशक्षा बोडस, प्रीत गिहार, ददल्ली; गिदेशक, न्द्यू ग्रो सॉफ्टिेयर सॉल्यूशि, प्रा. गलगमटेड, पीरािढी

चौक, िई ददल्ली; प्रबंि गिदेशक, मगहपालपुर एक्सटेंशि, िई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री उमेर आलम,

कामिार , द्वारा - ददल्ली कायासलय एिं प्रगतष्ठाि कमसचारी संघ, गिष्णु ददिंबर मािस, िई ददल्ली, के बीच अिुबंि में गिर्दसष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-1 िई ददल्ली पंचाट(संदभस संख्या 246/2017) को जैसा दक

[सं. एल -42011/87/2017-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20thNovember, 2023

S.O. 1833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 246/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chairmen, Central Board of Secondary Education, Preet Vihar, Delhi ; The Director, New Grow Software

Solution, Pvt. Ltd.,Peeragarhi Chowk, New Delhi ; The Managing Director, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi,

and Shri Umer Alam, Worker, Thtough-Delhi Office & Establishment Employees Union,Vishnu Digember

Marg, New Delhi , which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.11.2023.

[No. L-42011/87/2017-IR (DU) ]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (RETD.) PRESIDING OFFICER,

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, NEW DELHI

ID. No. 246/2017

Shri Umer Alam S/o Shri Badre Alam,

Rep. Delhi Office & Establishment Employees Union,

BTR Bhawan, 13-A, Rouse Avenue,

Vishnu Digember Marg,

New Delhi - 110092

……..Workman

4168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Chairmen,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,

Preet Vihar, Delhi – 110092.

The Director,

New Grow Software Solution, Pvt. Ltd.

C-257, Hall No.5, 3^rd Floor,

Peeragarhi Chowk, New Delhi.

The Managing Director,

RZ A-83, Road, No.4 Gali No.6

Mahipalpur Extension,

New Delhi.

…………..Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-42011/87/2017-IR(DU) of dated 21.08.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of M/s Neha Aviation Management Pvt. Ltd. Working in the establishment of

CBSE, Delhi-92 in terminating the services of workman Sh.Umer Alam S/o Sh.Badre Alam, under the express of

implied instruction of CBSE is legal and justified and if not, what relief the said workman is entitled to?”

Receiving the said reference, Tribunal ordered to register the same as Industrial Dispute Case pursuant to

which the present I.D. Case No.246/2017. The claimant workman filed the statement of claim and made his

appearance through his authorized representative Sh.B.K. Prasad. Notice issued to the opposite party for filing of

written statement. On 09.10.2018, very promptly the opposite party CBSE put it’s appearance before the Tribunal

through Ms.Sakshi Sharma vice Shri Ajit Rajput, A/R for the CBSE and filed the written statement.

In the meantime application on behalf of the claimant filed for withdraw the present case. The present case is

pending before the two courts one before the Tribunal and second is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

in W.P.C No.12994/2021.

Since the present case is dismissed, as withdrawn. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

JUSTICE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1834.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मिाप्रबंिक, अिोक िोटल, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िीरा बल्लभ,कामगार, द्वारा -अिोक

िोटल मििूर िनता यूजनयन; अिोक िोटल मििूर कमिचारी संघ, (इंटक से संबद्ध) ि अिोक, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍या 147/2021) को

िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 20.11.2023 को

प्राप्त हुआ ाl

[सं. एल -42011/141/2021-आईआर(डीयू.)]

डी. के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 147/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4169

Labour Court - I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The General Manager, Ashok Hotel, New Delhi, and Shri Hira Ballabh, Worker, through- The Ashok Hotel

Majdoor Janta Union; Ashok Hotel Majdoor Karamchari Sangh, (Affiliated to INTUC) The Ashok, New

Delhi, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20.11.2023.

[No. L-42011/141/2021-IR (DU).]

D.K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

Present :

Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastava (Retd.) (Presiding officer)

CGIT, Delhi-1

ID No.147/2021

Sh. Hira Ballabh rept. By,

The Ashok Hotel Majdoor Janta Union,

(Affiliated to HMS), Ashok Hotel Majdoor Karamchari Sangh

(Affiliated to INTUC) The Ashok,

New Delhi-110021

Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Ashok Hotel, New Delhi-110021

Management

Sh. S.S. Upadhyay, A/R for the claimant

Ms. Swati Setia, A/R for the management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No-L-42011/141/2021-IR(DU) dated 30.11.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Ashok Hotel, New Delhi for not sanctioning the casual leave and

keeping Sh. Hira Ballabh leave application pending without intimating him the reason for not sanctioning the

same as raised by Ashok Hotel Majdoor Janta Union vide letter dated 11.03.2019 is proper, legal and justified?

If not, what relief is the disputant entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of

the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements.

Shri S.S. Upadhyaya President, Ashok Hotel Majdoor Janta Union, filed an application for passed the no dispute

award. As per the application case has been decided mutually by the management as such no litigation is required.

4. Since the no litigation is pending between the workman and management, Tribunal is passed a “No dispute/Claim”

award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, for publication.

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

4170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 20 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1835.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मिाप्रबंिक, आयुि जनमािणी, येिुमजलाराम, मेडक (एृी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, रक्षा इकाई रन

कैंटीन जसजवजलयन कमिचारी संघ (बीएमएस), बलजया नगर कॉलोनी, ओल्ड अलवाल, जसकंिराबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-िजिराबाि ृंचाट (संिभि सं्‍या 4/2010) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 19.10.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल -14011/52/2009-आईआर(डीयू)]

डी.के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2023

S.O. 1835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. 4/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Yeddumailaram, Medak (AP), and The General Secretary, Defence

Unit Run Canteen Civilian Employees Union (BMS),Balaiah Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabad, which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 19.10.2023.

[No. L-14011/52/2009-IR (DU)]

D.K.HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2010

Between:

The General Secretary,

Defence Unit Run Canteen Civilian

Employees Union (BMS)

Plot No.101, FR, Balaiah Nagar Colony,

Old Alwal, Secunderabad.

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Yeddumailaram,

Medak (AP).

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri K. Phani Raju, Advocate

For the Respondent: M/s. M.C. Jacob, Sudha & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-14011/52/2009-IR(DU) dated 25.1.2019

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

the management of Ordnance Factory and their workmen. The reference is,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4171

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Unit Run Canteen Civilian Employees Union for regularization of services of Shri

K.B.N. Maheshwar, Shri G. Srinivas Goud, Shri G. Sudharshan Goud, Shri D. Srinivas Reddy,

Smt. S. Vijaya Gouri, Shrri K. Dasharath, and Shri P. Prakash by the Management of Unit run Canteen of

Ordnance Factory, Medak is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.4/2010 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the petitioners are claiming their re-engagement into service and further regularization of services

with the respondent. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner has joined in Unit Run Canteen of Ordnance Factory

Project, Yeddumailaram on 2.8.1997 and worked continuously with the respondent. The 2^nd petitioner joined on

20.10.1998, The 3^rd petitioner joined on 10.09.1997, the 4^th petitioner joined on 10.01.1998, the 5^th petitioner joined

on 21.10.2000 and the 6^th petitioner joined on 20.06.2000 respectively with the respondents. It is to submit that all

the applicants have worked continuously with the respondents without any break except the artificial one without any

remarks in service. But to their surprise their services were illegally and orally terminated in the month of August,

2009. It is submitted that the respondent’s Organization i.e., Ordnance Factory is having more than 300 units in All

over India. The respondent comes under the Central Government Organization under the Ministry of Defence. The

Unit run canteen where the applicants have worked is a part of Ordnance Factory headed by General Manager, of the

respondent factory. The work extracted from the applicants is regular in nature and have more than 8 hours of

working hours a day. The Unit Run Canteen is to be run by the consolidated fund of India, apart from the earnings

of the Canteen. The wages will also be paid from the said fund only. It is submitted that more than 3000 employees

are working with Respondent and the unit run canteen where the applicants were working have more than Rs.30 to

Rs.40 lakhs turnover in a month. It is further submitted that though the initial appointment order issued to the

petitioners was for 89 days, but they were continued regularly without any break till the oral termination in the month

of August 2009. All the petitioners have completed more than 15 years of service without any break and remarks.

Their working hours were more than 7 hours a day as has been admitted by the respondent in the correspondence and

initially appointment letters were issued to them. It is to submit that in pursuance of the Apex Court judgment in

favor of the Unit run canteen workers in the year 2001, the respondents have framed the Rules and Regulations

governing the Unit Run Canteen Workers for extending the pay scales and for Regularization of their services on par

with the regular employees. The Rules and Regulations were framed in the year 2003 which was approved by the

Ministry of Defence. The said regulations were applied by the Ordnance Factory all over India to the workers

working in the Unit Run Canteen of their branches. Most of the units have extended the benefits of pay scales to

their workers on par with the regular employees and also have considered regularization of their services to the

eligible employees. But to the surprise and shock to the petitioners, the respondent neither extended the pay scales on

par with the regular employees as specified in the Regulations issued in the year 2003 nor considered for

regularization of services in terms of the said regulations which are issued in compliance of the directions of the

Apex Court. The petitioners have submitted several representations individually and through union requesting for

extending the benefit of pay scales and for regularization of their services as was done in other unit run canteens.

But the same are not considered by the respondents in spite of several reminders being given to them though they are

eligible and entitled for the same. Hence, the petitioners have left with no other option have raised a dispute before

the Labour commissioner. By this act of Petitioners the respondents have developed grudge against the petitioners and

have illegally terminated the petitioners from service orally in the month of August, 2009 without assailing any reason

and without issuing any prior notice contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex court and various other courts

and in violation of Principles of natural justice. Further, when several other Unit Run Canteen of the Ordnance

Factory all over India have implemented the Regulations issued in terms of the Apex Court Judgment and have

extended the benefits of pay scales and Regularization of the services of the workers working in Unit Run Canteens

under their control. But contrary to the same, the respondents have denied the said benefits and terminated the

services of the petitioners in violation of the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents is illegal,

arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence, prayed to set aside the oral termination order, directing the Respondents to

reinstate the Petitioners and regularize the services of the Petitioners on par with the regular Employees with all

consequential benefits, such as arrears of salary, Pay scale and attendant benefits etc from the date of eligibility.

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

It is submitted that the Ordnance Factory, Medak, which is situated 60 Kms., away from Hyderabad / Secunderabad

twin cities has a small Unit Run Canteen to facilitate the needs of the employees of Ordnance Factory Medak and the

allied establishments. The above Unit Run Canteen operates 06 days in a week with sale hours of four hours a day

split into two hours in the afternoon and evening. In order to cater the day to day sales in the unit, workers were

engaged on part-time basis for its functioning. These persons whose services were taken on part-time basis without

any sort of commitment of any type what-so-ever and they were being paid on pro-rata basis for which they have

agreed and rendered their services. It is submitted that the petitioners were engaged purely on part time basis without

any sort of commitment of any type whatsoever and they were being paid on pro-rata basis for which they have

4172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

agreed and rendered their services. It is submitted that at no point of time, the petitioners have brought out any sort of

grievance either against the Management of Unit Run Canteen or any other issues relating to their services. It is

submitted that the petitioners for the reasons best known to them, stopped to come to the establishment and did not

report for duty from 01.08.2009. As the petitioners did not report to duty, the respondent has closed the establishment

during the period from 01.08.2009 to 17.08.2009. As the workers employees of the Ordnance Factory requested the

management to take necessary action for re-opening the canteen, Management has taken necessary steps and started

the activities of the Respondent-establishment i.e. Unit Run Canteen. It is submitted that, on 11.12.2008 and on

28.1.2009 Unit Run Canteen Management was surprised to receive notices from the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Hyderabad, inviting for negotiations in regard to the dispute raised by the petitioners. The officials of the

Respondent establishment attended and submitted the facts stating that the petitioners are not permanent employees

and their services are utilized on part-time basis and there was no contractual obligation on the part of the

Management. Since the divergent views are taken the matter concluded in failure. It is submitted that the

Petitioners have engaged in the Respondent organization on part-time basis, for working four hours in a day with

Monday as holiday and paid pro-rata basis. It is denied by the Respondent that all the applicants have worked

continuously with the Respondents without any break except the artificial one without any remarks in service and but

to their surprise their services were illegally and orally terminated in the month of August 2009 and the petitioners are

put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the Respondent-establishment is being run as welfare activity for its

employees. The Unit Run Canteen is operated by a Committee nominated by the General Manager and other Senior

Officers of this respondent factory. Their funds are Non-government funds. The employees of this Unit Run Canteen

are appointed purely on casual basis/need basis. It is submitted that the respondent organization i.e. the Ordnance

Factory is having more than 300 units in all over India, the Respondent comes under the Central Government

Organization under the Ministry of Defence, the Unit Run Canteen where the applicants worked is a part of Ordnance

Factory. The work extracted from the applicants is in regular nature and have more than 8 hours of working hours a

day, the Unit Run Canteen is to be run by the consolidated fund of India, apart from the earnings of the Canteen, the

wages will also be paid from the said fund only and the Ordnance Factory the respondent herein is having more than

3000 employees working with them and the unit run canteen where the applicants are working is having more than

Rs. 30 to Rs. 40 lakhs turnover in a month is incorrect. It is further denied that though the initial appointment order

issued to the petitioner is for 89 days, but were continued regularly without any break till the oral termination orders

were issued in the month of August 2009, all the petitioners are completed more than 15 years of service without any

break and remarks, their working hours are more than 7 hours a day as been admitted by the Respondent in the

corresponding letters and in the initial appointment letters issued to them, in pursuance of the Apex Court judgment in

favour of the unit Run canteen workers in the year 2001, the respondents have framed the Rules and Regulations

governing the Unit Run canteen Workers for extending the pay scales and for Regularization of their services on par

with the regular employees, the Rules and Regulations were framed in the year 2003 which is approved by the

Ministry of Defence, the said regulations were applied by the Ordnance Factory allover India to the workers working

in the Unit Run Canteen of their branches, most of the Units have extended the benefits of pay scales to their workers

on par with the regular employees and also have considered action of their services to the eligible employees, but to

the surprise and shock to the petitioners, the respondent here in neither extended the pay scales on par with the regular

employees as specified in the Regulations issued in the year 2003 nor considered for regularization of services in

terms of the said regulations, which are issued in compliance of the directions of the Apex Court, the petitioner have

submitted several representations individually and through union requesting for extending of the benefit of pay scales

and for regularization of their services as in done in other unit run canteens, but the same are not considered by the

respondents in spite of several reminders being given to them though they are fully eligible and entitled for the same,

hence for the petitioners have left with no other option have raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner, by this

the respondents have developed a grudge against the petitioner and have illegally terminated the petitioners from

service/orally in the month of August 2009 without assailing any reason and without issuing any prior notice to them

in contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court and various other courts and in violations of Principles of

natural justice, further when several other Unit Run Canteen of the Ordnance Factory all over India have implemented

the Regulations issued in terms of the Apex Court Judgement and have extended the benefits of pay scales and

Regularization of the services of the workers working in Unit Run Canteens under their control, but contrary to the

same, the respondents have denied the said benefits and have terminated the services of the petitioners in violations

of the principles of Natural Justice, the actions of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary and highly discrimination,

questioning the illegal termination and denial of their Regularization of service and pay scales and the Petitioners are

praying for Justice before this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the guidelines framed as per the orders of the Apex

Court do not apply to the case of the petitioners as the same is distinguishable to the facts in the case of the

petitioners. It is submitted that the Petitioners have left the services for the reason best known to them, the question

of non-compliance of mandatory provisions, before termination of the services of the petitioner does not arise. It is

further submitted that since the petitioners are not in service of the Respondent-establishment and also not put in 240

man-days working for 8 hours in a working day, the relief of reinstatement, regularization and other benefits on par

with the regular employees as claimed by the petitioners against the Respondent-management is devoid of merit and

liable to be rejected.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4173

4. Petitioner union examined Sri K B N Mahesh as WW1 who marked photocopies of 21 documents i.e., Ex.W1 to

W21 in support of their claim. Management examined Sri V. Khader Babu as MW1.

5. None present on the dates fixed. Hence, case is reserved for award.

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

I. Whether the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the services of the Petitioners Sri K.B.N.

Maheshwar, Shri G. Srinivas Goud, Shri G. Sudharshan Goud, Shri D. Srinivas Reddy, Smt. S. Vijaya Gouri, Shrri K.

Dasharath, and Shri P. Prakash is legal and justified?

II. Whether the demand of unit run canteen civil employees union for regularization of the services of Sri K.B.N.

Maheshwar, Shri G. Srinivas Goud, Shri G. Sudharshan Goud, Shri D. Srinivas Reddy, Smt. S. Vijaya Gouri, Shrri K.

Dasharath, and Shri P. Prakash is legal and justified?

III. To what relief the Petitioners are entitled?

7. Points No.I& II: Petitioners claim that they have joined services in Unit Run canteen of Ordnance Factory

Project, i.e., Yeddumailaram, petitioner has joined in Respondent project on 2.8.1997 and worked continuously

with the respondent. The 2^nd petitioner joined the service on 20.10.1998, The 3^rd petitioner joined on 10.09.1997, the

4^th petitioner joined on 10.01.1998, the 5^th petitioner joined on 21.10.2000 and the 6^th petitioner joined on

20.06.2000 respectively in the respondent’s Unit run canteen and they continued to work with the Respondent

without any break except the artificial one without any remarks in service. Petitioner submits that their services were

illegally and orally terminated in the month of August, 2009. It is claimed on behalf of Petitioners that the work

extracted from the applicants was regular in nature and have more than 8 hours of work a day. The Unit run canteen

is to be run by the consolidated fund of India, apart from the earnings of the Canteen and the wages were paid from

the said fund only. It is submitted that Respondent issued appointment letters to the petitioners for 89 days, but they

were continued regularly without any break till the oral termination orders issued in the month of August 2009.

Petitioners submit that all the Petitioners have completed more than 15 years of service without any break and

remarks and their working hours were more than 7 hours a day as has been admitted by the respondent in the

correspondence and in the initial appointment letters issued to them. Therefore, it is prayed to direct the

Respondent to reinstate the Petitioners into service and grant them the benefit of regularization as per rules and

regulations formulated under the direction and decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. To substantiate their claims Petitioners have examined witness WW1, Sri K B N Mahesh who has corroborated the

averments made in the claim statement in his examination in chief affidavit. He was cross examined by the

Respondent counsel but nothing was confronted to the witness regarding the fact of their appointment in the canteen

run by Ordnance Factory as temporary employees and continuance of their regular employment upto August,

2009. Further, in support of averments, Petitioners have submitted documentary evidence which includes

appointment letters issued b y the Respondent to the Petitioners for joining the services in the canteen. Ex.W1 to

Ex.W6 are the appointment letters of six Petitioners. Ex.W1 is the appointment letter dated 30.7.1997 which was

issued by the Respondent in the name of Sri K B N Mahesh. The perusal of the appointment letter Ex.W1, reveals

that the Petitioner Sri K B N Mahesh was appointed for the post of Sales Assistant in the Unit Run canteen /OFPM

for a period of 89 days w.e.f 4.8.97 on purely temporary basis on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. As per

appointment letter, Petitioner was paid a fixed amount of Rs.800/- per month and it was also mentioned that his

temporary services are liable for termination at any time during this period without assigning any reason or notice.

As per Clause 6 of the appointment letter the working hours of the Petitioner were mentioned as from 12 noon to 8

pm with one hour lunch time or as decided by the Management of Unit run canteen. Therefore, as per Ex.W1

Petitioner Sri K B N Mahesh was appointed in the Unit Run canteen of Respondent Management for a period of 89

days w.e.f. 30.7.97 on payment of fixed amount of Rs.800/- pm. Similarly, Ex.W1-A, is another appointment letter

of Petitioner Sri K B N Mahesh which reveals that the Petitioner was appointed as a salesman for a further period of

89 days w.e.f. 23.12.2000 on temporary basis on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.1500/- pm and the similar terms

and conditions are reiterated. The other document Ex.W2 is appointment letter dated 1.1.99 which pertains to the

appointment of Petitioner Sri D. Srinivas Reddy as Sales Assistant on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.1200/- ;

another appointment letter dated 23.12.2000 Ex.W2-A of Sri D. Srinivas Reddy as Salesman on payment of

remuneration of Rs.1400/- pm.; Ex.W3 is the appointment letter dated 29.6.1999 of Sri G. Srinivas Goud on

payment of a fixed amount of Rs.1100/- and another appointment letter Ex.W3-A dated 24.9.2000 of Sri G. Srinivas

Goud as Sales Assistant, on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.1300/-, Ex.W4 is appointment letter dated 14.8.98 of

Sri G. Sudarshan Goud as Assistant on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.800/-, Ex.W4-A is another appointment letter

dated 28.9.99 of Sri G. Sudarshan Goud, as Assistant on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.1100/-; Ex.W5 is

appointment letter dt. 15.10.2000 of Sri P Prakash, as helper on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.800/- and Ex.W5-

A is another appointment letter dt.23.12.2000 of Sri P. Prakash, as Helper on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.800/-;

Ex.W6 is appointment letter dated 20.7.2000 of Sri K. Dasarath, as helper on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.800/-

and Ex.W6-A is another appointment letter dated 23.12.2000 as helper on payment of a fixed amount of Rs.800/-.

4174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9. Document Ex.W7 is the letter pertaining to increase of remuneration of URC staff w.e.f. April, 2006, which goes

to show that the remuneration of the Petitioners was increased by General Manager. It is noticeable in this

document that there is clear mention that the Petitioners who were working as a staff in the Unit Run Canteen have

worked for more than 5 years and they had worked sincerely and satisfactorily. This document Ex.W7 which has

been issued by the authority on 10.4.2006 that clearly establish that Petitioners No.1 to 6 had been working

regularly in the unit run canteen of the Respondent Management since their appointment for more than 5 years.

Further, Ex.W8 is order dated 13.8.2007 pertaining to increase of remuneration of the UC staff which goes to show

that Petitioners’ remuneration was again enhanced by the Respondent Management and it also contains that

Petitioners has been working as staff in the URC from Tuesday to Saturday on working hours and 1200 hrs to 1700

hrs on Sunday. Thus URC staff was practically working for more than 7 hours in a day. Ex.W7 and W8 fortify the

claim of the Petitioners that they have worked in the Unit Run Canteen for more than 7 hours a day and their work

was of regular nature. Further Ex.W9 dated 30.4.2008 pertains to matter of increase of remuneration to URC Staff

and thereby remuneration of the Petitioner’s was again enhanced due to their satisfactory work. It is also mentioned

in Ex.W9 that URC is running satisfactorily because of good effort of canteen staff , therefore proposed to increase

the remuneration of the staff. The working hours of URC staff mentioned in the said letter has been mentioned

same as in the earlier documents Ex.W1 to W8. Another document Ex.W10 dated 27.9.2006 pertains to order of

grant of incentive bonus for the year 2005-06 for the unit run canteen staff subject to a minimum of Rs.2000/- each

and proposed to grant Rs.3000/- each to managing committee members. Another document Ex.W11 dated

12.10.2007 is also order for incentive bonus for the year 2006-07, for the unit run canteen staff. Ex.W12 is the

order dated 4.9.2008 for incentive bonus for the year of 2007-08. Further, Ex.W13 is dated 9.8.2004 a memorandum

of URC employees to the Minister of State for defence Production & Supplies. Ex.W14 dated 3.9.2009 is letter of

Minister of Defence, through which the memorandum of URC was acknowledged. Again Ex.W15 is a

representation moved by the Petitioners to the Minister of State (Labour & Employment). Ex.W16 is a reminder

regarding Ex.W15. Ex.W17 dated 8.7.2005 is a document pertains to the representation of General Secretary,

Ordnance Factory Civilian Employees Union, addressed to the Respondent requesting for regularization of services

of the CSD Canteen employees. Ex.W18 letter by the DG, Ordnance factories to all other ordnance factories dated

28.6.2007, Ex.W19 is the extract of rules and regulating the terms and conditions of service of civilian employees of

URC paid out of non-public fund. The perusal of these documents as discussed above delineates that the Petitioners

were appointed by the Respondent Management in unit run canteens as temporary employees and they continued

to work in the canteen till the month of August, 2009, when their services were terminated by oral order without

issuing notices or compensation. It also reveals that they have worked as a staff in Unit Run Canteen of Respondent

for a period of more than eight years.

10. On the other hand, Respondent refuted the allegation of the Petitioners in counter reply and contended that the

Petitioners left services for the reasons best known to them, hence, the question of non compliance of mandatory

provisions before termination of the services off Petitioners does not arise. It is also contended that since the

Petitioners are not in service of Respondent and also not put in 240 days work, only worked for 8 hours per day,

relief of reinstatement, regularization and other benefits on par with regular employees, it is the claim of the

Petitioners against the Respondent Management which is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention

Respondent Management has filed chief examination affidavit of MW1 and also filed documents, which pertains to

rules and regulations and copy of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court.

11. Now, the question arises whether Petitioners have left the service on their own volition or they were terminated by

the Respondent from the service. In this regard, Respondent counsel cross examined WW1 and the witness was

given the suggestions in this regard, and witness replies, “it is not true to suggest that after making application

before RLC(C) we have not attended to the duties from 1.8.2009 to 17.8.2009. During the conciliation proceedings

before the RLC(C) the Management has attended the proceedings on all the dates. During the period from 1.8.2009

to 17.8.2009 there were no proceedings before the RLC(C) with regard to our regularization. It is not true to suggest

that during the period from 1.8.2009 to 17.8.2009 the Respondent establishment was closed as the Petitioners have

not attended the establishment.” The Witness further adds that, we have attended the duties but the gates of the unit

were closed. As on the date of raising the dispute, seven workmen were working in the Respondent establishment

including myself.” The witness WW1 further states that, “ the timing of the Respondent unit was 12.00 PM to 4.00

PM and 5.00 PM to 8.00PM.” Further witness states, “That the Petitioners have not disputed the nature of duties,

the timing of duties so as the payment of wages during their service period till they raised the dispute before RLC(C).

Witness also states that they requested the Management for enhancement of the wages because of the heavy load of

work. The witness has denied the suggestion of the Respondent that Petitioner have filed this case to harass the

Management and they are not entitled to any relief.

12. From the above statement of the WW1 it is clear that before 1.8.2009 Petitioners were working regularly and

were attending the duties as per schedule. Respondent failed to prove the contention that the Petitioners have left

the service of the canteen on their own volition. It is beyond the understanding that once they move to RLC(C) for

grievance, why they will abandon their job? Further, the dispute regarding the enhancement of wages of Petitioner

workmen was pending before the RLC(C) and the Petitioners were contesting the matter before the RLC(C). In such

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4175

a circumstances it is unfathomable that, while they have been pursuing their grievance of the enhancement of

wages how and why they have relinquished their job by absenting from their duty?

13. In view of the fore gone discussion and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record it is proved

that the Petitioners had worked on temporary basis in the employment of Respondent Management since their date of

appointment up to their date of termination from the service i.e., August, 2009 and they have worked in the

employment for more than 240 days. Therefore, the provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 do apply to the case

of present Petitioner. Admittedly, before their termination from service, Respondent has not given any notice or

compensation as mandate under Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, therefore, their termination from the employment is in

violation of the Sec.25F of the Act, which is illegal and unjustified. In this regard Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs Employer I/R to management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of 2014 dated

17.02.2014 held and laid down that :-

“It would be difficult to give relief of reinstatement to the persons who were engaged as daily wagers and whose

services were terminated in a distant past. And further where termination is held to be illegal only on a technical

ground of not adhering to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Law on this aspect, as developed over a period

of time by series of judgements makes the aforesaid legal position very eloquent. Out purpose would be served by

referring to a recent judgement rendered by this very Bench in the case of BSNL.Vs. Bhurumal 2013(15) SCALE 131

which has taken note of the earlier case law relevant to the issue. Following passage from the said judgement would

reflect the earlier decisions of this court on the question of reinstatement:

“"The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court granted compensation instead

of reinstatement. In the case of BSNL Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558, this Court has held that when the termination

is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of

reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In the case of Incharge Officer & Anr. vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9

SCC 126, it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a

period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to

grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, although the termination of

Petitioner form service by Respondent Management was done in violation of provision of sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947

but they are not entitled for reinstatement as they were not working on sanctioned post in the Respondent

Management as a regular employee. Hence, they are entitled for monetary compensation.

14. Now, as far as the question of demand of the Petitioners for regularization in the service of the Respondent is

concerned, since they were appointed only on temporary basis and it is clearly mentioned in their appointment letters,

Ex.W1 to Ex.W6, that their services can be terminated without any notice any time. Moreover, they were appointed

temporarily for the work in the Unit run Canteen and they were not working against any sanctioned post in the

Respondent Management nor they have gone through the recruitment process as per rules and regulations for

recruitment on the Respondent Management. They were appointed only on the basis of their applications moved by

them seeking for employment. Therefore, the claim of Petitioners for regularization in services is not maintainable,

in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Umadevi Case. The decision of Hari Nandan Prasad

Vs Employer I/R to management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of 2014, is relevant in this context where

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. But for that, it would not deter the Industrial Tribunals/ Labour Courts from issuing such direction,

which the industrial adjudicators otherwise possess, having regard to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act

specifically conferring such powers. This is recognized by the Court even in the aforesaid judgment.

34. On harmonious reading of the two judgments discussed in detail above, we are of the opinion that when there

are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court would not give direction for

regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of

years. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for regularization would be impermissible. 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).

4176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Therefore, in view of fore gone discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is established that in

the present matter Petitioners were not appointed as regular employees nor working against any sanctioned post in

the Respondent’s office. However, they were not appointed through recruitment process as per rules and regulations,

therefore, Petitioners are not entitled for regularization in the employment of the Respondent.

Thus, Points No.I & II are decided accordingly.

15. Point No.III: In view of the finding given in Point Nos. I & II, it is established that the Petitioners have been

terminated from the employment of the Respondent in violation of the sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 without

following the mandatory provisions i.e., prior notice, compensation etc.. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Hari Nandan Prasad Vs Employer I/R to management of FCI in Civil Appeal No.2417-2418 of

2014 they can not be granted reinstatement into service. Since Petitioners had worked for a long period of almost

10 years and they have been terminated in violation of the provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, without giving

notice or compensation and the poor Petitioners even after putting in almost 10 years of their life in the services of

Respondent have been left without any occupation which caused to them as well as to their families situation of

starvation. Now, at this stage they might have been over aged and may not be in a position to apply for recruitment

in any other job. Therefore, in view of the discussion in fore gone paragraphs, and law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Harinandan Vs. Food Corporation of India, the Petitioners are entitled for grant of

compensation in terms of three months pay (i.e., last drawn pay).

Result:

Petition is partly allowed. The claim of the Petitioner for regularization in the service of Respondent Management is

declined. The Petitioners are awarded monetary compensation of three months pay as last drawn. Respondent

Management is directed to pay the monetary compensation of three months pay (three times of last drawn pay)

within two months after receipt of this award. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 10^th

day of October, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri K B N Mahesh

MW1: NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 1^st Petitioner dt.30.7.1997

Ex.W1-A:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 1^st Petitioner dt. 23.12.2000

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 2^nd Petitioner dt.1.1.99

Ex.W2-A:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 2^nd Petitioner dt.23.12.2000

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 3^rd Petitioner dt.29.6.1999

Ex.W3-A:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 3^rd Petitioner dt.24.9.2000

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 4^th Petitioner dt.4.8.98

Ex.W4-A:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 4^th Petitioner dt.19.10.2000

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 5^th Petitioner dt.19.10.2000

Ex.W5-A:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 5^th Petitioner dt23.12.2000

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 6^th Petitioner dt.20.7.2000

Ex.W6-A:

Photostat copy of appointment letter of 6^th Petitioner dt.23.12.2000

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of lr. No.CRC/OFMK/2005-06 dt.10.4.2006

Ex.W8:

Photostat copy of lr. No.001/URC/OFMK/2007-08 dt.13.8.2007

Ex.W9:

Photostat copy of lr. No.001/URC/OFMK/2007-08 dt.30.4.2008

Ex.W10:

Photostat copy of lr. No.004/URC/OFMK/06-07 dt. 27.9.2006

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4177

Ex.W11:

Photostat copy of lr. No.001/URC/OFMK/07-08 dt.12.10.2007

Ex.W12:

Photostat copy of lr. No.012/URC/OFMK/08 -09 dt. 4.9.2008

EX.W13:

Photostat copy of lr. to Hoon’ble Minister by Union dt. 9.8.2004

Ex.W14:

Photostat copy of lr. from Hon’ble Minister to the Respondent dt.3.9.2009

Ex.W15:

Photostat copy of representation of the Petitioner dt. 4.8.2009

Ex.W16:

Photostat copy of representation of Petitioners dt.22.9.2009

Ex.W17:

Photostat copy of representation from the union dt. 8.7.2005

Ex.W18:

Photostat copy of lr. of Department dt. 28.6.2007

Ex.W19:

Photostat copy of lr.No.960029/Q/DDGCS dt. 28.4.2003

Ex.W20:

Photostat copy of lr. NO.1041/A/W dt. 26.5.2005

Ex.W21:

Photostat copy of extract of Rules & Regulations of service of civilian employees.

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1836.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

सिायक. ृुरातत्ववेत्ता, भारतीय ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण,अिमिाबाि उृ-सकिल, भािरा, अिमिाबाि- (गुिरात); अिीक्षण

ृुरातत्वजवि्, भारतीय ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, वडोिरा सकिल, मांडवी, वडोिरा-(गुिरात), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

संयुि. सजचव, अज ल गुिरात िनरल मििूर संघ, अिमिाबाि (गुिरात), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- अिमिाबाि ृंचाट(संिभि सं्‍या 48/2019) को िजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 20/11/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42011/236/2018- आईआर-डीयू ]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2019) 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 The Asstt. Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Ahmedabad Sub-Circle, Bhadra, Ahmedabad-

(Gujarat); The Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Vadodara Circle, Mandvi,

Vadodara-(Gujarat), and The Jt. Secretary, Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad(Gujarat),

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 20/11/2023.

[No. L- 42011/236/2018- IR DU]

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,

4178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ahmedabad,

Dated 03^rd October, 2023.

Reference: (CGITA) No- 48/2019

1. The Asstt. Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Ahmedabad Sub-Circle,

Above Bhadra Kali Mata Temple,

Nr. Civil Court, Bhadra,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380001.

2. The Superintending Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Vadodara Circle, Puratatwa Bhavan,

Mandvi, Vadodara(Gujarat)-390001.

…...…….First Party

The Jt. Secretary, Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh,

2^nd Floor, Arab Chambers,

Opp. Pattharkuva Petrol Pump, Relief Road,

Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-380001. .

………….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri Kishan Chandel.

Adv. for the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/236/2018-

IR(DU) dated 04.02.2019 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 the union, Jt. Secretary, Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad for

reinstatement alongwith back wages of Sh. Anilkumar Raijibhai Parmar who joined as a Security Guard-cum-sweeper

in 1996 and was terminated orally on 14.04.2014 by the Asst. Archaeologists, Archaeological Survey of India,

Ahmedabad is legal, fair and justified? If yes, what relief, Sh. Anilkumar Raijibhai Parmar is entitled to and what

other directions are necessary in this matter?”

Today, the matter was called out. First Party employer represented through Ld. Counsel Shri Kishan

Chandel. None responded for Second Party workman/union. The reference dates back to 04.02.2019. The SP

workman was represented through Shri M. H. Sanghariyat on 04.07.2022. Thereafter adjournment applications were

moved by SP workman on 20.02.2023, 03.05.2023 and 04.09.2023. SP workman has neither filed any statement of

claim nor moved any application for adjournment. It seems that the workman is not interested to proceed further in

the matter. The claim under reference has not been substantiated by any evidence, thus dismissed for want of

evidence.

The reference is thus answered in negative against the workman/union.

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, 21 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1837.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मिाप्रबंिक, एनटीृीसी, वीृीओ बरमाणा, जबलासृुर (जिमाचल प्रिेि); मिाप्रबंिक, यूरटजलटी ृावरटेक जलजमटेड,

कोल्डम िाइड्रो इलेजक्रक प्रोिेक्ट, जबलासृुर, जिमाचल प्रिेि; मजससि िमाि लाइट िाउस, वीृीओ िेिर, मंडी (जिमाचल

प्रिेि); मेससि ग़ौतम आयिन जबल्टवेल प्रा. जलजमटेड वीृीओ, जबलासृुर, जिमाचल प्रिेि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

और मिासजचव, कोल डजम वकिसि यूजनयन, जबलासृुर, जिमाचल प्रिेि, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंडीगढ ृंचाट(संिभि सं्‍या 02/2017) को िजसा दक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4179

अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 20/11/2023को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल – 42011/133/2016-आईआर-(डीयू)]

डी.के.जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

The General Manager, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh);The General Manager, Utility

Powertech Ltd. Koldam Hydro Electric Project, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh;M/s Sharma Light House, VPO

Dehar, Mandi (H.P); M/s Gautam Aryan Builtwell Pvt. Ltd. VPO ,Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, and The

General Secretary, Kol Dam Workers Union, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 20/11/2023.

[No. L- 42011/133/2016- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present : Sh. J.K. Tripathi,

Presiding Officer.

ID No.02/2017

Registered on:-03.04.2017

General Secretary, Kol Dam Workers Union, House No.222/2, Raura Sect. Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

…….Workmen-on

Versus

The General Manager, NTPC, VPO Barmana, Tehsil Sadar, Distt.-Bilaspur(Himachal Pradesh)-174013.

The General Manager, Utility Powertech Ltd. Koldam Hydro Electric Project, Jamthal Township, P.O.-

Jamthal, The-Sadar, Distt.-Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh-174036.

M/s Sharma Light House, VPO Dehar, Tehsil-Sunder Nagar, Mandi(HP).

M/s Gautam Aryan Builtwell Pvt. Ltd. VPO Bahot Kasol, The-Sadar, Distt.-Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

.….Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-13.09.2023

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/133/2016-IR(DU) Dated 27.03.2017, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act),

has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of NTPC KOLDAM, Bilaspur and Utility Powertech Ltd. and

M/s Sharma Light House, Contractor and Gautam Aryan Builtwell Private Ltd. in termination the

services of fifty nine workmen of Koldam Workers Union, Bilaspur(HP) w.e.f. 16.07.2016 is legal, just

and valid? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition as per claim of the workmen are that the workmen

were directly appointed and employed by the respondent-company NTPC through respondent no.2-UPL(Utility

Powertech Limited) which is a joint venture company of NTPC and Reliance. Later on some private contractors were

brought-in and the workers who were working with the company were transferred to these workers for the purpose of

allotment of work and wages. The work of the workmen were supervised, controlled and managed by respondent no.1

which is the Principle Employer. On 14.10.2015 the workmen-union served a demand notice to the respondents with

regard to the violation of various provisions of labour laws in the company(Annexure P-1). On 20.04.2016 the

workmen-union issued another demand notice to the respondents qua the violations of the provisions of Labour

Laws(Annexure P-2). The copy of same was also forwarded to Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) at

Chandigarh as well as to the Labour Enforcement Officer(Central), Shimla, H.P. But the respondent-company neither

4180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

filed any reply to the demand notice nor complied with the directions issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

On 15.07.2016 a compromise/settlement was arrived at between the parties i.e. workers-union as well as the

management of NTPC(Annexure P-3). The ill-designs of the respondent-company were exposed when just after one

day i.e. on 16.07.2016 the respondent-company started terminating the workmen employed with it verbally without

issuing any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry and opportunity of being heard as per the requirement of Section 25-F &

25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the services of the workmen were dispensed with in contravention of

the settled provisions of law and principles of natural justice as well as the workmen are out of job till date. The

juniors and similar situated persons are still working with the respondent-management as the work is continuously

available with the respondent-corporation and only the workmen have been picked up and their services have been

disposed with by the management arbitrarily without giving any reason, notice and opportunity of being heard and

thus, the retrenchment so inflicted is in utter violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is binding

and mandatory to be adhered to. The workmen are entitled to the one month notice pay, retrenchment compensation

and ex-gratia one month wages for each working year which are required to be paid under the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned verbal termination of the workmen may kindly be quashed and

set aside in view of the submissions made above and the respondent-management be directed to make the payments to

the workmen for the notice pay, retrenchment compensation and ex-gratia one month wages for each working year.

Respondent No.1-General Manager, NTPC Ltd. has filed its written statement, alleging therein that these

contract workers were engaged by the respective contractors namely M/s Sharma Light House & M/s Gautam Aryan

Build Well Pvt. Ltd. for work contract. Respondent No.1 had no role to play in the engagement of these contract

workers since the contract was a job contract as such, there is no employee and employer relationship between these

contract workers and respondent no.1 therefore, there is no question of retrenchment of these contract workers by

respondent no.1. It is vehemently denied that the contract workers worked under the supervision and control of

respondent no.1. The contractor being job contract was under the supervision and control of respective contractors.

There is no violation of any provisions of labour laws by respondent no.1. All the provisions of labour laws are

strictly complied by respondent no.1 and the same was informed to Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Chandigarh

vide letter dated 28.05.2016. It is further denied that any compromise/settlement was arrived between the Workers

Union and NTPC on 15.07.2016. The agreement annexed with the claim petition by the workmen was never executed

by NTPC management as such, the same is not tenable as per law. It is admitted that an agreement between State of

Himachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and NTPC Ltd. was signed for execution of Koldam

Project. The nature of work is contractual and accordingly contract has been awarded to contracting agencies to carry

out various job works. There is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by respondent no.1. It is

therefore, most respectfully prayed that in view of the submissions made herein above, the present claim petition

deserved to be dismissed out rightly with heavy costs in the interest of justice.

Respondent no.2-General Manager, Utility Powertech Ltd., Koldam has filed its written statement, alleging

therein that Power Station Operation and Maintenance Agreement(PSOMA) was executed between NTPC and Utility

Powertech Limited(UPL) under which certain jobs/works have been identified to be carried out by UPL through

assignments. Those jobs/works are carried out by UPL through bidding process and successful bidders are given

award letter to carry out those jobs/works. The workmen in question were engaged by the respective contractors

namely M/s Sharma Light House & M/s Gautam Aryan Build Well Pvt. Ltd. for executing the works under a contract.

Respondent no.2 had no role to play in the engagement of these contract workers since the contract was a job contract

as such, no employee and employer relationship exists between these contract workers and respondent no.2.

Therefore, there is no question of retrenchment of these contract workers by respondent no.2. The contract being job

contract was under the supervision and control of respective contractors. There is no violation of any provisions of

labour laws in the Company. All the provisions of labour laws are strictly complied by respondent no.2 and the same

was informed to Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), Chandigarh vide letter dated 28.05.2016. Any

compromise/settlement was never arrived between the Workers Union and UPL on 15.07.2016. The respondent no.2

was not a party to the alleged compromise/settlement dated 15.07.2016 as claimed by the workmen. These contract

workers were never engaged by respondent no.2 therefore, there is no question of retrenching and reinstating these

contract workers. The nature of work is contractual and accordingly contract has been awarded to contracting

agencies to carry out various job works. The workmen were directly engaged by the contracting agencies for the

works awarded to them. It is denied that respondent no.1 has dispensed with the services of the workmen through

other respondents. The averment of the workmen with regard to verbal termination by the respondents is totally

baseless and misconceived. There is no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by respondent no.2. It

is therefore, most respectfully prayed that in view of the submissions made herein above, the present claim petition

deserved to be dismissed out rightly with heavy costs in the interest of justice.

Workmen filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondent no.1, alleging therein that the

respondent no.1 is the principle employer and has duly appointed the workers of the union and assigned the respective

works. The workmen were not the labour of any contractor when were appointed by respondent-company to perform

their duties respectively. the workers were scrutinized and shortlisted only after interviewing them independently and

looking at their qualifications and skills that too by the management itself and only after having satisfied the

management appointed the workmen and telephonically contacted the workmen to join the work and thereafter the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4181

work was assigned to the workmen by the management of the respondent-company itself. The respondent-company

has been directly assigning the work to the workmen and has been monitoring the same and issuing directions without

the interference of any contractor as alleged. The workmen have been given direct appointments by the respondent-

company thorough its management and no contractor at any point of time had direct relationship with the workers and

the respondent-company being the principle employer cannot run away from its legal responsibilities. The contractors

as alleged have no role to play in the employment of the workmen and they were directly appointed by the

respondent-management. The compromise/settlement which is now being denied by the respondent has been entered

into in the presence of the representative of the respondent-management namely Mr. Praveen Bharti as well as the

Deputy Superintendent of Police and SDM. The respondent-company was established on the land which was acquired

by the State for the purpose of establishment of the respondent-company and these lands belong to the families of the

workmen who are land loosers. The land loosers left their lands for the purpose of the respondent-company after

being assured that the family members would be given employment by the respondent-company and now the

respondent-company has even denied to owe the workers of its company which is sheer betrayal of trust and also

violating the terms and conditions of the MOU signed by the company with that of the State of HP. The workmen

were directly recruited, scrutinized and interviewed by the respondent-management and later the work was assigned,

controlled, supervised and monitored by the management of the respondent-company itself and in this the private

contractors have no role to play. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the reply filed by the respondent-

company being illegal and based on wrong facts may kindly be rejected and the relief as claimed in the claim petition

may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice and fair play.

Workmen filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondent no.2, alleging therein that the

respondent no.2 employed the workers directly for the principle employer/respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1

and 2 have duly appointed the workers and assigned the respective works. The workmen were not the labour of any

contractor when were appointed by respondent no.1 and 2 to perform their duties respectively. the workers were

scrutinized and shortlisted only after interviewing them independently and looking at their qualifications and skills

that too by the management itself and only after having satisfied the management appointed the workmen and

telephonically contacted the workmen to join the work and thereafter the work was assigned to the workmen by the

respondent-management. The contractors as alleged have no role to play in the employment of the workmen and they

were directly appointed by the respondent-management. The remaining paras alleged in the rejoinder are same as

alleged in the claim petition hence need not to be repeated again.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal on 13.09.2023, the case was fixed for

appearance of workmen and for filing evidence by way of affidavit but none is turning up on behalf of workmen.

Learned AR of the management has submitted that the workman is not turning up for filing evidence by way of

affidavit since long and several opportunities have already been granted to the workmen but none turned up in spite of

several opportunities afforded. This shows that the workmen are not interested in adjudication of the case on merit.

Since the workmen have neither put their appearance for long nor they have filed any evidence by way of

affidavit to prove their cause against the respondents/managements. As such, this Tribunal is left with no alternative

except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference. File after

completion be consigned in the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

J.K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम् बर, 2023

—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV ¼70@2015½ izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y 12012/48/2015-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 70/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/48/2015-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. No.70 OF 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Bank of India

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of Management, Bank of India

: Mr. R.N. Majumder,

Advocate

On behalf of the Workman

: Mr. A, Chakraborty

Advocate and

workman in person

Dated 30^th August, 2023

AWARD

Both sides are present through their respective counsels. The workman is also found present in person.

Today has been fixed for evidence of workman, but he file a petition supported by an affidavit stating that he

wants to withdraw the present case which was espoused by him with a liberty to pursue with the appropriate authority

to claim his statutory dues to which he is otherwise legally entitled to .

Ld. Counsel for the Bank raise no objection on such prayer made by the workman.

Record shows, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour by order No. L-12012/48/2015-IR(B-II) dated

14.09.2015 has referred the following issue for settlement or adjudication by the Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bank of India is justified by terminating the service of Sri

Goutam Panchal is legal / justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Ld. Counsel for the workman submits the workman no more wants to pursue with the above dispute. That he

accepts his termination from the service by the Management of the Bank, but liberty should be given to the workman

to claim all the statutory dues to which he is entitled as a retrenched employee of the Bank.

Since the concerned workman does not want to challenge this order of his termination from service and as

such there remains nothing to adjudicate by this Tribunal.

Accordingly, the petition filed by workman today is allowed. No dispute award is passed but liberty is given

to the workman to claim his statutory dues to which he is entitled as a retrenched/terminated employee. Reference

No. 70 of 2015 is disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (52/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y 12011/26/2014-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their workmen.

[No L-12011/26/2014- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4183

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. NO. 52 OF 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of Management, Andhra Bank

: Absent

On behalf of the Workmen

/ Union

: Absent

Dated 30^th August, 2023

AWARD

Both sides are found absent today too.

Record shows the case has been fixed for further cross-examination of W.W. No. 1, but his evidence on

record shows his evidence was concluded on 21.02.2019. Be that as it may, now it appears the case ought to have be

fixed for further evidence from the side of workmen / Union or for evidence from the side of the Management.

None pursuance of the matter by both side since 22.04.2020 shows that both side are no more interested to

pursue with the dispute. Therefore, evidence from both sides are assumed to be concluded.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour by order No. L-12011/26/2014-IR(B-II) dated 19.06.2014 has

referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:-

“(1) Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank by not allowing seniormost employee Shri

Mihir Kumar Dey due to non-implementation of CGIT Order dated 02.11.1993 is legal or justified? What relief the

workmen is entitled to? (2) Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank by not giving suitable opportunity

to Shri Mihir Kumar Dey to be designated for the post of Clearing House Representative as stipulated in para 37 of

the Hon’ble CGIT order dated 02.11.1993 for which he has suffered financial losses is legal and/ or justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to?”

The fact giving rise to such dispute in gist are that the concerned workman being a senior clerk was deputed

to R.B.I. to work in the Clearing House of Andhra Bank and for which he was paid special allowance, but Bank in

violation of Award dated 02.11.21993 passed by the Tribunal in Ref. case No. 10/1990 adopted a new policy of

recruitment of clearing representative causing financial loss to the concerned workman and issued a vacancy

notification barring those already served as clearing cleric earlier. Hence the Reference.

The Management in its W/S has alleged concerned workman was already superannuated from service on

30.09.2014. At the time of passing of Award in Ref. case No. 10/1990 on 02.11.1993 CTS clearing was nor

introduced. After introduction of C.T.S. through Andhra Bank Chennai Grid, the R.B.I. does not hold clearing. The

disputed circular issued on 08.02.2013 for posting of clearing House Representative was in accordance with the

Award dated 02.11.1993. Posting was given to the Senior Clerk on rotational basis. The concerned workman never

applied for post and he having already worked as Clearing House Representative is not eligible for redeployment on

deputation for the same post in view of the Award dated 02.11.1993. Thus, it has prayed for dismissal of the

Reference.

Perused the Award dated 02.11.1993 (Ext W-2) and from where it appears other senior clerk had raised the

said dispute through there Union challenging the continuous posting of Mihir Kr. Dey, the workman concerned as

Cleaning House Representative at R.B.I. and depriving other eligible candidates for the deputation post attached with

special allowance.

Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to hold that post of Clearing House Representative at R.B.I. cannot be allowed

to be held by one employee for eternity. The appointment should be made amongst the willing and eligible senior

most clerk irrespective of their six for a period of one year and on rotational basis. The appointment of Mr. De, the

workman concerned is not proper and had given direction to the Bank for removal of Mr. De, the workman concerned

4184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on appointment of clearing house representative or within two months of publication of the award. No allowance

should be paid to all eligible clerks but only to the one who is and will be appointed / selected for the post on

deputation to R.B.I. as Clearing House Representative.

The verdict given in the above award itself make the claim made by Shri Mihir Kr. Dey in the present

reference to illegal. In fact this tribunal finds Mr. De being a Union leader and an injured tiger to satisfy his injured

ego has espoused the present dispute as by the Award dated 02.11.1993 passed in Reference case No. 10/1990. Bank

was directed to remove him from the post of House Clearing Representative of the Bank in R.B.I. and he was not

allowed to hold the post for eternity and other senior most clerk who are willing and eligble be posted on rotational

basis and for a period of one year. Ext 3 appears to be the disputed circular and which contains all the conditions as

mentioned in the Award dated 02.11.1993. So the same being in conformity with the Award dated 02.11.1993, the

Tribunal does not find the same be illegal or in violation of Award dated 02.11.1993 as alleged by the workman Mr.

Dey.

It is very interesting to note that Mr. Dey during his cross examination under oath has admitted that though

he has alleged the Bank did not deploy senior most clerk on rotational basis to R.B.I. as Clearing House

Representative, but at the same time he has stated he cannot say the names of the Staff who have been deprived the

posting on rotational basis and admitted he did not complaint about the same before the Authorities Concerned of the

Bank. He has also admitted that he did not allege that Bank violated Para 39 of the Award.

Therefore, having regards to the evidence of the concerned workman Mihir Kr. Dey and the relevant

documentary evidence discussed above, the Tribunal hold the workman Mihir Kr. Dey has raised a false and frivolous

dispute against the Management of the Bank.

Therefore, the Reference case No. 52/2014 is dismissed an award to that effect is passed.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (12/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y 12011/27/2021-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their

workmen.

[No L-12011/27/2021- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. No. 12 OF 2021

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Punjab National Bank

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of Management, Punjab National Bank

:Mr. S. M.

Obaidullah, Advocate

On behalf of the Workmen / Union

: None

Dated 4^th September, 2023

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4185

AWARD

The Bank is present through its Ld. Counsel. The Union which has espoused the dispute is found absent.

Notice sent to it in the address given in the order of reference through speed post has returned un served with postal

endorsement “ the addressee is not found in the given address”.

It is undisputed fact the Central Govt., Ministry of Labour refers a dispute on receiving a report of

conciliation failure from the concerned Labour Commissioner before whom the concerned Union has raised the

dispute.

Therefore, the Union which has raised the dispute is presumed to be aware of the present reference case

moment the conciliation, fails and refer the dispute to the Ministry of Labour by the concerned Labour Commissioner.

The order of reference further shows the copy of same was forwarded to the concerned Union which has

espoused the dispute.

In view of above and presumption can be drawn that Union is well aware of the present reference. None

appears of Union and presumption can be drawn that it is no more interested to pursue the dispute raised by it.

However, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour by order No. L-12011/27/2021-IR(B-II) dated 07.09.2021

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the Management of United Bank of India, Kolkata (Now merged with Punjab

National Bank) in abeyance on appointment of Sri Raju Nayak, as a part Time Sweeper (1/3^rd) at Narayanpur Branch

is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?’.

Since there is nothing in the record to adjudicate the above issue and as such No Dispute Award is passed.

Accordingly, Reference No. 12/2021 is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (04/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[l- ,y-12012/146/2000-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolkata

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.

[No L-12012/146/2000- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

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

REF. No. 04 OF 2001

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

UCO Bank

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

On behalf of Management, UCO Bank

: Absent

On behalf of the Workmen Sri Chittaranjan Ghosh : Absent

Dated 4^th September, 2023

4186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The workman Shri Chittaranjan Ghosh, who has espoused the dispute against the UCO Bank and the

management of UCO Bank are found absent when the matter is called.

Record shows both sides have stopped appearing and taking necessary step for further hearing of the case

since 13.11.2019and both have failed to appear despite having received fresh notice of appearance send by the present

P.O.

Therefore, a presumption can be drawn the parties are no more interested to pursue with the dispute

“Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in dismissing Shri Chittaranjan Ghosh from service

w. e. f. 08.10.1998 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is Shri Ghosh entitled to?”. Such dispute has been referred

by the Ministry of Labour by order No. L-12012/146/2000/IR(B-II) dated 06.02.2001.

Record shows both sides have filed their respective pleadings in support of their respective cases.

Unfortunately, both sides by adducing oral evidence have failed to prove the contents of their pleadings and cases.

From the pleadings of the parties it appears the concerned workman was a clerk of the Bank. While he was

posted at Diamond Harbour Branch, he had indulged in misconduct by forgoing signature altering entries in the Bank

Records and had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.40,000/- and there by he was placed under suspense on 20.02.1992 and

he was charge sheeted 24.09.1992. However, he had confessed to the crime on 14.10.1992 and sought mercy from

Divisional Manager. He was pardoned for such guilt by transferring him from Diamond Harbour to Shibanipur

Branch with holding two increments with cumulative effects and by making an entry is his service book not to entrust

him with supervisory duties in future and there by revoked his suspension order dated 20.02.1992.

Unfortunately Bank received complaint from a customer S. Halder for fraud of more then Rs.5,00,000/- (five

lakh) against the concerned workman. On such complaint he was charge Sheet on 02.07.1994 and domestic enquiry

was initiated against him. In which he fully participated but he was refused to take help of a lawyer. He was found

guilty to the charge and dismissed him from the service.

He challenged his dismissal order before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 29668 (W) of 1997 and which

was dismissed on 02.03.1998, but workman has contracted in the claim statement that no fair enquiry was conducted.

That he is a victim of management here the reference.

Unfortunately there is no oral evidence to substantiate the claim of the workman there he was wrongly

charge sheeted. The contents of charge is false. That no Principal of natural justice is not followed during domestic

enquiry. That he was nor given opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses or that he was nor supplied

with the copy of documents on which management has placed reliance or that domestic enquiry held against him is no

fair, just or that he has been victimized by the management.

In view of the above the no dispute award is passed. Accordingly, Reference case no. 04/2001 is disposed of

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

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

ljdkj ससंगरेनी कोजलयरी कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la-,y-22012/80/2016-

(सी.एम-II)

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 41/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Singareni Colliery Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/11/2023.

[ No. L-22012/80/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 21^st day of September, 2023

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4187

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 41/2016

Between:

Sri Salluri Kistaiah,

S/o Late K. Posham,

R/o H.No. 5-51/2, Rasoolpally,

Jaipur(M),

Adilabad Dist. (Telengana)

Telengana – 504216.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur

Adilabad (Telengana) 504 303.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri A. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/ 80/2016-IR(CM-II) dated

19.10.2016 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampur Area,

Adilabad Dist in terminating the services of Shri Sallari Kistaiah, Ex-CC RK-5 Inlcine, SCCL, Srirampur

Area, with effect from 16.5.2005 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 41/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner evidence. Respondent present. Record reveals that case is

posted for filing of Petitioner evidence since July, 2023 but Petitioner is absenting since March, 2019. No

evidence is adduced in support of contentions raised in the claim statement. Due to absence of evidence and non-

persuasion of case by Petitioner, it seems that Petitioner is not interested to pursue his case. 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

September, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

4188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

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

ljdkj ससंगरेनी कोजलयरी कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/86/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 75/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Singareni Colliery Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/11/2023.

[ No. L-22012/86/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20^th day of September, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2022

Between:

The Singareni Collieries Workers

Union (AITUC), Bellampalli,

Mancherial District,

Mancherial – 504208.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur

Adilabad (Telengana) 504 303.

… Respondent

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4189

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

None

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/ 86/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 30.9.2022

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

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

for non-considering for promotion of Sri V. Rajender as Fan Operator from Hauler Operator is fair, legal

and justified? If not, to what the relief the workman concerned is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 75/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

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

Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. In absence of Petitioner

and claim statement, the case is dismissed and 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 20^th day of

September, 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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

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

ljdkj ससंगरेनी कोजलयरी कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/69/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 241/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Singareni Colliery Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/11/2023.

[ No. L-22012/69/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N., Dy. Director

4190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 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 4^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 241/2014

Between:

The President,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCMS),

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar nagar, Mancherial – 504208.

Adilabad Distt. (A.P.)

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri – 504 231.

Adilabad District.(A.P.)

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Bhagwanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/ 69/2014-IR(CM-II) dated

25.11.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference

is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Konda Saraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, MK-4 Inc.,

Mandamarri Area with effect from 17.1.2001 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is

entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 241/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as an employee on 14.1.1986, and he become permanent Employee

during the course of service in the Company. The Service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by various

standing orders of Company. It is submitted that the Petitioner could not attend to his duties during the year 2000

due to his ill health, then Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 15.1.2000 and the Petitioner submitted a

reply on 25.1.2000 which was not considered by the Respondent Company and he was dismissed from Service

through proceedings No. P/RKP/16/01/204, dated 15.1.2001. It is submitted that the Petitioner preferred an appeal to

the Higher authorities which went in vein, and authority concerned mechanically upheld the orders of Chief General

Manager, Mandamarri Division. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was put in 3 years of service without any

red remark and the Petitioner has got still 20 years of service for superannuation. Further, it is submitted that

removing from services of the Respondent, person who rendered more than 2 years of qualified service is arbitrary,

illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and also against to the Provisions of the Standing Orders of the

Company. It is submitted that the Petitioner was given employment for the post as Coal Filler. So giving

employment to the Petitioner is subject to availability of vacancy of work. Whenever Petitioner used to go for job

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4191

there is no work but there appears to be a contributory negligence. It is submitted that Respondent company one way

given employment and other way dismissed from service. The intention of the company is crystal clear i.e., to

remove the masses i.e excessive labour. Further, it is submitted that the company adopted unfair labour practice and

victimization. The Petitioner could not opt Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of employment, but opted

employment. Now the Petitioner has got re-option to claim compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of dependent

employment through Settlement 20.11.2009 if the employment is not provided. It is submitted that the action of the

Respondent amounts to "Hire and Fire" which has no force in the Industrial Jurisprudence. It is submitted that the

“Award And Settlements" both are decrees in terms of Industrial disputes Act. Further, it is submitted that there was

settlement before the Regional Labour Commissioner at Hyderabad, that those who were removed from 1.1.2000 to

30.12.2010, those cases can be considered by the Management as per the Circular P.40/5911/IR/33, dated 10.3.2000

and the Petitioner was called for interview, but the case of the petitioner was not considered for re-employment as

per the settlement. If the petitioner was given employment he would have been put in more than additional 20 years of

service. Therefore, non-consideration of settlement by the company is very bad and against the law. That the

Respondent did not conduct enquiry properly and no documents were given to the Petitioner and no subsisting

allowance was paid to him. The Respondent obtained thumb impressions on enquiry report and conducted enquiry

and Petitioner do not know the English language and enquiry conducted by the Respondent without mentioning

contents therein is arbitrary, illegal and against to the Principles of natural Justice. That the Petitioner prays the

Hon'ble Court to decide the validity of Domestic enquiry as Preliminary issue. It is submitted that after removal from

the service by the Respondent to the Petitioner the Petitioner and children of Petitioner are fallen on roads with untold

sufferings. The relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent is still continuing and the Petitioner not yet

reached the age of superannuation. Hence, prayed to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into Service

with continuity and other attendant benefits and with full back wages, by setting aside dismissal order passed by

Respondent.

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

It is submitted that the RCMS Union who raised the dispute before the conciliation officer, has not filed any Claim

Statement before this Hon'ble Tribunal and as such Sri Konda Saraiah who filed the Claim Statement is not

maintainable and considering that the petitioner-union has no case to represent before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is

submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Company on proved charge of absenteeism vide

letter No. P.RKP/16/01/204, dated 15.1.2001 w.e.f. 17.1.2001. It is submitted that there is an abnormal delay of

about 12 years in raising the dispute by the Petitioner and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and latches. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to decide the delay in raising the

dispute as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that the delinquent workman was dismissed on proved charges after

conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. That the validity of domestic

enquiry be decided as a preliminary issue. In this regard, it is submitted that this Court permit the respondent to

produce the evidence in case it is held that domestic enquiry is not valid. It is submitted that the Petitioner, Sri

Konda Saraiah, S/o Ramulu as mentioned in his Claim Petition filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal, Employee Code

2035475, Coal Filler, MK.4 Incline, Mandamarri Area of the Respondent Company, was initially appointed in the

Company on 11.2.1986 and later regularized as Coal Filler. While he was working at MK.4 Incline, Mandamarri

Area, he had put in just 62 musters during the calendar year 1998 and remained absent to duties unauthorizedly on all

other days in the year, which constituted misconduct under Company's Standing Orders No.25.25. Hence, he was

issued with a charge sheet bearing No. MK4/99/4/043, dated 24.2.1999/ 6.3.1999 under company's Standing Orders

No. 25.25 for the misconduct committed by him which reads as follows:

"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause."

It is submitted that the petitioner received the charge sheet, and submitted his written explanation to the charge sheet

issued to him dated 13.3.1999 wherein he submitted that due to his ill health he had put in 62 musters only during

the year 1998, henceforth he will be regular to duties, requested to excuse his mistake. His explanation was found to

be not satisfactory, hence an enquiry was ordered. An enquiry notice No.MK4/99/4/043, dated 13.3.1999 was issued

advising him to attend enquiry on 20.3.1999. It is submitted that Petitioner fully participated in the enquiry and he

was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. Petitioner attended and fully participated in the enquiry and he

was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. Before commencing the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry

Officer had explained the enquiry procedure. The petitioner having understood the procedure and at his free will took

part in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer started the enquiry proceedings only when the charge sheeted

employee expressed his readiness to take part in the proceedings. Further, the Enquiry Officer had offered the

opportunity of availing the services of defence assistant but the petitioner did not avail the same. The Presenting

Officer and the management witnesses deposed their evidence in the presence of the petitioner, which was duly

recorded by the Enquiry Officer and explained to the charge sheeted workman in Telugu. Further, the documentary

evidence was produced by the management in the presence of the petitioner, to substantiate the charge leveled against

the petitioner in the enquiry and explained in Telugu by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner did not cross-examine the

management witnesses when the opportunity was afforded to him and voluntarily pleaded guilty of charge leveled

against him. In his deposition during the course of enquiry, the petitioner submitted that he remained absent on the

4192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dates mentioned in the charge sheet and that the same is mistake on his part. He accepted his mistake and pleaded

guilty of the charge leveled on his own. He stated that he remained absent due to ill-health. He further submitted

that he did not obtain prior sanction of any leave or sick for the said period and that he got no medical treatment slips

or reports to substantiate his claim and accepted that remaining absent from duty is mistake on his part and assured

to be more careful and will not remain absent unauthorizedly. Inspite of giving opportunity, he failed to establish the

cause cited by him for his unauthorized absence from duty and failed to produce valid and relevant evidence. On the

other side from Management side the witness produced Attendance Registers, Paid pay sheets for 12 months period

records established the charge levelled. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence adduced in the enquiry and after

appreciating all the recorded evidence, submitted his report in which it was held that petitioner is guilty of the charge

leveled against him under Company's Standing Order No.25.25. It is submitted that the petitioner was supplied copy

of Enquiry proceedings, Copy of the report and letter advised to submit his representation, if any, against the findings

of the enquiry officer within seven days of receipt of the letter. The petitioner acknowledged receipt of the letter

dated 28.4.1999 along with its enclosures but made no representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It

is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings, explanation dated

13.3.1999 of the petitioner and after evaluating all the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the enquiry

officer. Since the charge framed and proved in the enquiry was grave and serious in nature warranting punishment of

dismissal and after considering his attendance over 5 calendar years viz., 1996- 104 musters; 1997- 117 musters;

1998- 062 musters; 1999-114 musters and 2000- 127 musters, and after finding that there was no improvement in his

attendance and as there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, imposed the penalty of dismissal

with effect from 17.1.2001 vide letter No. P/RKP/16/01/204, dated 15.1.2001. It is further submitted that the

petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190 attendances as expected from an

underground workman in any of the calendar years from 1996 to 2000. Even though he was given opportunity to

correct himself by being regular to duties, he failed to do so. His average attendance over 5 calendar is far below the

bench mark of 190 musters. Further, he remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient cause

and did not bother to communicate to the unit authorities about his inability to attend to duties. Further, the petitioner

assured that he would be regular to his duties. However, the petitioner did not keep up his promise to improve his

attendance. He did not at least inform or communicate the reasons of his absence to the mine authorities at any point

of time, which clearly establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. The Respondent Company has been

operating Dispensaries, Area Hospitals and Main Hospital to extend medical facilities/aid to its employees, their

dependant family members. The petitioner, if really was suffering from health problems, he ought to have reported

sick in Colliery Hospital; he ought to have requested for sanction of leave to his credit or for sanction of loss of pay

leave, but without availing these channels, he chose to remain absent from duties unauthorizedly and attributing his

absence to road accident without substantiating the same. Therefore, the management was compelled to dismiss the

petitioner, from the service of the Company with effect from 17.1.2001 on proved charge. The contention of the

petitioner that since he got another 20 years of service for superannuation, removing the service of the petitioner with

more than 2 years of qualified service is arbitrary, illegal and against Principles of Natural Justice and also against the

provisions of Standing Orders of the Company is totally incorrect and meritless. If he had left over service of 20

years, the petitioner had to be very careful and discharge his responsibilities and duties with commitment. Length of

service already rendered and the period of service left over are not criteria for initiating disciplinary action and

imposing penalty. Depending upon the seriousness of the misconduct committed and the gravity of the misconduct

established, penalty will be imposed. The action of respondent in dismissing the petitioner is neither arbitrary, illegal

nor against the Principles of Natural Justice and also not against the provisions of Standing Orders as claimed by the

petitioner. The petitioner is not bringing out the facts of his status as an employee in the company and also the

procedure adopted by the Respondent Company in providing him job. The petitioner at one end claims that he was a

regular employee and on the other hand submits that he was not provided employment on regular basis but was shown

employment subject to availability of vacancies. Both do not go parallel, as both the averments are contradictory. In

fact the petitioner was never returned after booking his IN muster (attendance) as no such practice is there in

Respondent company to return the employees who report for duty and book their attendance. Respondent already

introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake); Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme;

Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Low Productive Employees) but never used the disciplinary action of dismissal to

eliminate surplus manpower. The Respondent company never indulged in unfair labour practice and victimization as

alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent company had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to

provide an opportunity to the employees dismissed on the ground of absenteeism for appointment as Badli Fillers

afresh. In the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2011 arrived at with the then recognized Union SCWU AITUC

it was agreed to review the cases of employees dismissed on account of absenteeism during the period from

01.01.2000 to 31.12.2010 and the conditions are that (1) the dismissed employee should be below 55 years as on the

date of MoS i.e. as on 09.08.2011; (2) the dismissed employee should have put in 190 musters if an underground

employee and 240 musters if surface employee, in any two calendar years out of the 5 years prior to the year of

dismissal (or) should have put in 150 musters (underground employee), 200 musters (surface employee) every year in

the previous four years of dismissal year and (3) these dismissed employees will be interviewed by High Power

Committee and on the basis of High Power Committee's recommendations subject to medical fitness the candidate

will be given appointment as Badli Filler underground. The petitioner was issued call letter for attending an Interview

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4193

on 24.04.2012 at Head Office, Kothagudem of the Respondent Company in line with the terms of MoS dated

09.08.2011. However, in the present case, the petitioner is not satisfying the stipulations and hence his case was not

considered for appointment afresh as Badli Filler. Without qualifying himself for reappointment the petitioner cannot

claim that if he were considered for reemployment as per Settlement he would have put in 20 years of service is not

tenable. After lapse of time, Petitioner claiming that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted properly, the

petitioner could have registered his objections, protest and not affixed his signature/thumb impression on the enquiry

proceedings at the time of participating in the enquiry or when he was supplied the copy of enquiry proceedings and

report. Without doing so all these years, now after a lapse of 12 years the petitioner is claiming that enquiry was not

conducted properly which is an afterthought and hence the same is denied. The enquiry officer/respondent company

did not obtain the thumb impressions of the petitioner on the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer recorded the

proceedings in English but the entire proceedings were held in Telugu and in presence of the petitioner. Further the

Enquiry Officer had explained the recorded proceedings in Telugu to the petitioner and the petitioner after satisfying

that the same were recorded correctly then only affixed his signatures on the proceedings without any protest or

objections. Hence the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent obtained thumb impressions on enquiry report

and that the enquiry was conducted by the Respondents without mentioning the contents there and hence the same is

arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural justice is totally incorrect. As regards the contention that the

enquiry was conducted by the Respondent without mentioning the contents there in, it is to submit that the Enquiry

Officer conducted the proceedings in presence of the petitioner and also explained the enquiry procedure and started

the proceedings only when the petitioner was ready to take part in the proceedings. Further, the Enquiry Officer at

every stage, explained the recorded proceedings, in Telugu to the petitioner and the petitioner also without any

objection and protest and without raising any doubts affixed his signatures on the proceedings since he was satisfied

that the proceedings were correctly recorded in his presence. It is submitted that the Petitioner should have been

more careful and conscious of his responsibilities, towards his family members and towards his job. He failed to

realize his mistake in spite of giving opportunities and paid no heed to the advice of his higher authorities in regard to

be regular to duties. For the fault and mistakes of the petitioner he cannot hold the respondent Company responsible.

It is the petitioner himself who has to be blamed for this situation, which is the result of his negligent behaviour and

callous attitude towards his job. In view of above, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

The enquiry conducted by the Respondent is held legal and valid by order dated 26.7.2018.

Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties u/s. 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947 as well as perused

written arguments.

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

Whether the industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner after an inordinate delay of 12 years and

the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches?

II.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner is legal and valid?

III.

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating the

Petitioner workman from service is legal and justified?

IV.

Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner for his misconduct under Clause 25.25 of Company

Standing Orders is commensurate to the charges proved and the same is disproportionate?

To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

FINDINGS

Point No.II: It is submitted in this regard that the Departmental Enquiry held against the workman has been

held legal and valid vide order dated 26.7.2018.

This point answered accordingly.

Point No.I:

The counsel for the Respondent submits that Sec.10(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 provides that the

application for raising industrial dispute shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before expiry of 3 years

from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise, termination of service as specified in the sub-

section(1). Since the Petitioner was dismissed from the service of the Company on proved charge of absenteeism

vide order dated 15.1.2001 with immediate effect i.e., 17.1.2001, there is abnormal delay of more than 12 years in

raising the dispute by the Petitioner. Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and

latches. It is also submitted that the question of delay in raising the dispute should be decided as preliminary issue.

As per averment in the petition by the Petitioner, he was terminated from the service by the Respondent vide order

dated 15.1.2001 on the proved charge of misconduct under the Departmental enquiry. Whereas the industrial

dispute has been filed by the Petitioner in the year 2014 after the delay of 12 years from date of termination but,

Petitioner has no where mentioned or explained the reason for such delay in raising the ID. Therefore, the claim of

Petitioner has become stale due to delay and latches.

4194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this context, following decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court are relevant.

In the case of Haryana Sate Cooperation Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam reported in2005(5)

SCC 91, have held,

“that a delay of seven years in approaching the Labour Court to be relevant factor to refuse relief of

reinstatement;”

In the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Ravi Kumar reported in 2009 13 SCC 746, Hon’ble

Apex Court have held,

“that long delay in seeking reference of the dispute has rendered the reference State and it should have been rejected

by the Labour Court.”

In the case of Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar AIR 2006 SC 2670 Hon’ble Apex

Court have held,

“7. However, certain observations made by this Court need to be noted. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. K.P. Madhavankutty

and Ors. (2000 (2) SCC 455) it was noted ata paragraph 6 as follows:

"6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of

the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since heel

settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on

which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order

dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even

said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10

of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under

Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute

pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that

two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were

dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an

industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent."

d) In S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka (2003 (4) SCC 27) the position was

reiterated as follows (at para 17) :

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the

High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree. It is true, as held in M/s. Shalimar

Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1959 SC 1217)(supra), that merely because the Industrial Disputes Act does not

provide for a limitation for raising the dispute it does not mean that the dispute can be raised at any time and without

regard to the delay and reasons therefor. There is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial

tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen

and after conciliation proceedings have failed particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen

wholesale. A delay of 4 years in raising the dispute after even re-employment of the most of the old workmen was held

to be fatal in Mis. Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen (AIR 1959 SC 1217\supra), In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v.

K.P. Madhavankutty and others AIR 2000 SC 839(supra) , a delay of 7 years was held to be fatal and disentitled to

workmen to any relief. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others v. Union of India and others (1993 AIR SCW 2214

(supra), it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by

delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has

resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not

think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief. Although the

High Court has opined that there was a delay of 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute before the Tribunal but we find the

High Court factually not correct. The employment of the appellants was terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-87.

Pursuant to the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Employees under P and T Department v. Union of India (AIR

1987SC 2342Xsupra), the department was formulating a scheme to accommodate casual labourers and the appellants

were justified in awaiting the outcome thereof. On 16-1-1990 they were refused to be accommodated in the scheme.

On 28-12-1990 they initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by conciliation proceedings

and then the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. We do not think that the appellants

deserve to be non-suited on the ground of delay."

In the case of Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others Vs. Union of India and others 1993 AIR SCW

2214, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held that,

“ Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any

legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. From the date of retrenchment if

it is assumed to be correct a period of more than 15 years has expired and in case we accept the prayer of petitioner

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4195

we would be depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become eligible and are entitled to claim to be

employed.”

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above and in the absence of any

plausible explanation by Petitioner for such inordinate delay in filing the present claim of the Petitioner is barred

by limitation due to inordinate delay and latches.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Point No.III: Petitioner in petition states that he was appointed as employee on 14.1.1986 and became

permanent during the course of service in Respondent Company. Petitioner could not attend to his duties during the

year 2006 due to his ill-health and a show cause notice dated 15.1.2000 was issued to him. Petitioner submitted a

reply on 25.1.2000, that could not be considered by the Respondent Company and dismissed the services of the

Petitioner through proceeding No.P/RKP/16/01/204, dated 15.1.2001.

10.

On the other hand, Respondent submits that the Petitioner was initially appointed in the Company on

11.2.1986 and regularized as Coal filler. While he was working at MK.4 Mine, Mandamarri Area, he had put in 62

musters during the calendar year 1998 and remained absent to duties unauthorizedly on all other days in the year

which constituted misconduct under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.25. Hence, he was issued with a charge sheet

bearing mk4/99/4/043 dated 24.2.1999/ 6.3.1999 under Company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 for the misconduct

committed by him which reads as follows:

"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”

The petitioner had received the charge sheet, and submitted his written explanation to the charge sheet issued to him

wherein he submitted that due to his ill health he had put in 62 musters only during the year 1998, he took treatment

for typhoid fever and henceforth he will be regular to duties, not attending to duties on his part is mistake and

requested to excuse him. However, he failed to establish the alleged ill-health by producing medical reports,

treatment slips etc.. His explanation was examined and found to be not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered. An

enquiry was conducted on 20.3.1999 adhering to the principles of natural justice. Before commencing the enquiry

proceeding, the Enquiry Officer had explained the enquiry procedure to Petitioner. Petitioner had fully participated

in the enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Officer has offered the opportunity of availing the services of defence

assistant but the Petitioner did not avail the same. The Presenting Officer and the management witnesses deposed

their evidence. Further, documentary evidence was produced by the management to substantiate the charges leveled

against the petitioner. Petitioner accepted his mistake and pleaded guilty of the charge levelled on his own. He

stated that he remained absent due to ill-health and he took treatment at his native place where it was diagnosed as

Typhoid. He further submitted that he has no documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. The Enquiry Officer

on the basis of evidence adduced in the enquiry and after appreciating all the recorded evidence, submitted his report

in which the petitioner was held to be guilty of the charges leveled against him under Company's Standing Orders

No.25.25. Respondent also submits that the petitioner was supplied a copy of the Enquiry report and proceedings

vide letter No. P/RKP/46/99/1472, dated 28.4.1999, wherein he was advised to submit his representation if any,

against the findings of the enquiry officer within seven days of receipt of the letter. The petitioner received the letter

dated 28.4.1999 along with its enclosures and on this, the petitioner made no representation. It is submitted that

the Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings, and after evaluating all the evidence on

record, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. Since the charges levelled and proved in the enquiry were

grave and serious in nature warranting punishment of dismissal and as there were no extenuating circumstances to

take a lenient view, the petitioner was dismissed from Company's Services w.e.f. 17.1.2001. It is to mention here that

the petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190 attendances as expected from an

underground workman during the years from 1996 to 2000 and he remained absent from duty without sanctioned

leave, sick or sufficient cause and did not bother to communicate to the mine authorities about his inability at any

point of time, which clearly establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. Further, it is submitted that

Respondent has been operating Dispensaries, Area Hospitals and Main Hospital to extend medical facilities/aid to its

employees, their dependant family members. The petitioner, if really was suffering from health problems, he ought to

have reported sick in Colliery Hospital; he ought to have requested for sanction of leave to his credit or for sanction of

loss of pay leave, but without availing these channels, he chose to remain absent from duties unauthorizedly.

Therefore, the management was constrained to dismiss the petitioner, from the service of the Company with effect

from 17.1.2001.

11.

The perusal of the documents pertaining to Departmental Enquiry filed by the Respondent goes to show

that the Petitioner workman has put in only 62 musters in a year wherein as per rule he is required to maintain 190

musters in a year. Moreover, Petitioner remained absent from duties without sanction of the leave from Competent

Authority and he did not intimate authority about his leave/absence within time as per rule. Petitioner has taken

the plea for unauthorized absence from duties that due to illness he could not attend duty. Now, he can not blame

the Respondent for the action of the Respondent in terminating him from service. Moreover, he has taken plea that

he fell ill during the absent period but neither he tried to intimate the authority about his illness nor he has filed any

4196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

document pertaining to his illness or treatment. No evidence of treatment of illness has been filed by the Petitioner to

corroborate his plea. No explanation furnished by him as to why he did not go to Company hospital for treatment.

Therefore, in the absence of said explanation and evidence, the plea of Petitioner regarding his illness is not

acceptable. Since charge levelled against Petitioner for misconduct of absenteeism from duty has been proved during

the enquiry and domestic enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 26.7.2018, the plea taken by

Petitioner is not tenable.

12.

Having perused the enquiry proceeding along with the enquiry report, I am of the view that Enquiry Officer

has appreciated the evidence recorded during the enquiry and submitted his reasoned report holding the Petitioner

guilty of the charges of misconduct. Therefore, no case is made out to hold that domestic enquiry suffers from any

procedural lapse in following the principles of natural justice, thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the

Petitioner. Therefore, the action of the Respondent Management is held legal and justified.

This Point No.III is answered accordingly.

13.

Point No.IV:

Once domestic enquiry is held legal and proper, the next question arises whether the

punishment imposed on the Petitioner is just and legal or is it disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In this

regard Respondent Counsel submits that the Petitioner remained absent from duty for long periods in the year 1998

without any sanctioned leave or without any intimation to the competent authority. It is also submitted that

Petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in least 190 musters attendance during the years 1996

to 2000 also. The contention of the Respondent has not been countered by the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner

had just put in 62 musters in the year 1998. Prior to the year 2000, or three consecutive years i.e., 1997 to 1999

Petitioner did not complete the required musters of duty. Therefore, the Petitioner’s conduct towards regarding his

duty was negligent and delinquent and the Respondent employer has no option but to dismiss the Petitioner from the

service. Since the Petitioner was chronic and habitual absentee and no employer would ever allow or support such

behavior of his employee in such circumstances. The employer had therefore, every right to initiate domestic

enquiry against the employee for such serious misconduct and behavior. Therefore, charge against the Petitioner

was of serious nature of misconduct and order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner can not be faulted with or

in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, in other words, punishment of dismissal was proportionate

with the gravity of the charges, hence deserves to be upheld. The following decisions are relevant on this point:-

1. Apex Court in State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, wherein the Apex Court had held:-

“Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions,

we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a

grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with

the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when

the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is

made out.”

In the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 wherein, the

Apex Court had held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a

fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service

of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a

long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained

absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were

seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it

cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:

"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence,

more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence

and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows

the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only

exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders

the absence unauthorised."

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view

that the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner can not be faulted with or in any way disproportionate to

the gravity of the charges.

Thus, Point No.IV is decided accordingly.

18.

Point No.V: In view of the finding given in Point Nos. I to IV, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief

and this petition is found to be baseless, hence, liable to be dismissed.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4197

Thus, Point No.V is answered accordingly.

Result:

The action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri,

Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Konda Saraiah, Ex-Coal Filler, MK-4 Inc., Mandamarri Area with

effect from 17.1.2001 is justified. Hence, petition stands dismissed. The workman is not entitled to any relief as

prayed for.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 4^th

day of October, 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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj]

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

ljdkj ससंगरेनी कोजलयरी कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (

जनयंत्रण रे ा

/

) 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 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. LC 7/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Singareni Colliery Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/11/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -

Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.7/2009

Between:

Sri T. Shankaraiah,

S/o Ilaiah,

H.No.8-6-397,

Bhagath Singhnagar,

Godavarikhani – 505 214.

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

4198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapalli, Warangal District.

Superintendent of Mines,

KTK V Incline, Bhupalapalli Area,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bhupalapalli, Warangal District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar & P. Sudheer Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri T. Shankariah who worked as General Mazdoor (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries

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

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

Brief averments made in the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the petitioner joined the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., as Badli Filler on 16.9.1985.

Subsequently from 1.2.1988 his services were utilized as Depillaring Trainee. Thereafter his services were also

utilized as Short Firer from 1.8.88 to 31.1.89. From 1.4.89 he has undergone training for 3 months. Thereafter he

was posted as Coal Filler with effect from 1.10.1989. He worked as Coal Filler from 1.10.1989 to 31.10.1989. It is

submitted that while the petitioner was working as General Mazdoor, O.C.-I Ramagumdam Area, he was issued with

charge sheet dated 2.7.2001 alleging that he is executing plantation works on contract at Godavarikhani and

Bhupalapalli area during 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and that a partnership firm in the name of M/s Sai Constructions

was registered. It was also alleged that he continued to absent for duties during 1997 to 2000. He contested as

independent candidate for the post of Councilor in Ward No. 13 of Ramagumdam Area in the year 1998 Municipal

Elections without obtaining permission from the Company.The petitioner submitted his explanation vide

representation dated 4.7.2001. Thereafter he also made another representation dated 5.9.2001. It is submitted that

vide office order dated 1.4.2002 he was reverted to the post of Coal Filler with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the

same the petitioner filed W.P.No. 12187/2002 and the same is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It is

submitted that the petitioner was again issued with charge sheet dated 3.3.2005 holding that the petitioner's wife is a

partner of M/s Sai Constructions and that the petitioner is personally supervising the plantation works during the last 3

years and he is interfering with the works carried by the staff of Forest Departments and that he has submitted

pseudonymous complaint against the Manager, Forestry, Bhoopalapally in the name of his wife Smt. T. Vijaya and

that he was absented for duties during the year 2003-04. For which the Petitioner submitted explanation. Without

considering the explanation in proper prospective, an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer submitted his report

holding that the petitioner found guilty except the misconduct under Standing Order No. 27.17 all other allegations

held proved by the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 2.9.2006. The enquiry report was communicated to the

petitioner vide show cause notice dated 5.10.2006. Thereafter vide office order dated 14.8.2007 the General

Manager, Bhupalapalli Area imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Basing on the proceedings of the

General Manager, Bhupalapalli Area, the Superintendent of Mines, KTK No.5 Incline removed the name of the

petitioner from the roles of the Company. It is submitted that the charge no.1 alleged against the petitioner is false

and misconceived. Similar charges were framed against the petitioner on earlier occasion. He was imposed with

punishment of reversion to the post of Coal Filler. Again the very same charges have been alleged against the

petitioner. Thus initiation of Departmental Enquiry itself is illegal and contrary to law. No person can be imposed

with double punishment for the same set of charges. The charges framed against the petitioner in the charge sheet

dated 3.3.2005 and the earlier charge sheet dated 2.7.2001 are identical and one and the same. Thus initiation of

Departmental enquiry itself is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is submitted that the enquiry officer proceeded

with the enquiry in a mechanical manner as if he is the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer gravely erred in

holding that the charges are proved. The documents produced before the enquiry officer, namely exhibits ME.9 to

ME.10 are false and concocted. These documents do not bear any date on which the said photographs have been

taken. Thus, the entire enquiry was based on the evidence obtained behind the back of the petitioner and the

concerned persons who have taken video have not been examined in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer is also failed to

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4199

take into consideration that M/s Sai Constructions was registered on 23.10.1998 wherein the petitioner's wife and son

are the partners. There is no hard and fast rule that the relatives of the petitioner should not undertake any business

activity. In fact consequent to imposition of punishment to the post of Coal Filler, the petitioner was transferred from

Godavarikhani Area to Yellandu on 1.4.2001. Thereafter he was transferred to Manuguru on 12.10.2001. He worked

at Manuguru upto 14.5.2005. Thereafter again transferred to Bhupalapalli Area on 14.5.2005 and he worked in

Bhupalapalli till 14.8.2007. Therefore, the question of petitioner undertaking works in Bhupalapalli area during the

last 3 years from the date of issuance of charge sheet dated 3.3.2005 and false and misleading allegation. Similarly the

charge no. 2 (c )and 2 (d) are equally false and concocted. The charge of absence from duty is an incorrect statement.

The statement do not disclose whether he was in leave during the relevant point of time. The petitioner has been

attending to duty diligently and whenever he was absented he has been informing to his superior officer. Further

consequent to reversion from the post of General Mazdoor to the post of Coal Filler, he could not adjust to the

underground mining activity, therefore he was falling ill and due to that he was forced to go on medical leave for

undergoing treatment. Thus the absence, is only authorized and after intimation to the concerned officers. The charge

that the petitioner got issued pseudonymous petition in the name of his wife is false and incorrect. If the petitioner's

wife and son are carrying on the business activity, in the process they might have made a representation to the

Singareni Collieries Company with regard to their affairs of their firm, for which the petitioner cannot be found fault

with. It is submitted that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service is shocking

disproportionate and unjust to the charges leveled and proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that aggrieved by

the order of dismissal from service dated 14.08.2007, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman &

Managing Director vide appeal dated 23.8.2007. The Director (P,A&W) vide proceedings Ref: CRP/PER/IR/95/199

dated 30.01.2008 confirmed the penalty of dismissal from service. Thus the petitioner is constrained to approach this

Hon'ble Tribunal for necessary relief under Section 2 (A) (2) of Industrial Disputes Act,1947. It is therefore prayed

that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the punishment of dismissal from service vide proceedings

No.BHP/KTKS/R10/3014 dated 14.08.2007 is illegal and arbitrary; and consequently pass an award directing the

respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including arrears of

salary and pass such other order or orders under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

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

It is submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service on proved charges of misconduct after conducting a

detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to decide the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. In this regard, it is submitted that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the respondents to produce further evidence in case it is held that the

domestic enquiry is not valid. It is submitted that the petitioner had accepted the misconduct of unauthorized

absenteeism and as can be seen from the records he was dismissed vide Order dated 14.08.2007 and he has chosen to

file the present case in October, 2009 i.e. after a lapse of nearly 2 years. Hence the petition is barred by delay and

latches on which ground alone it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that in the case of Assistant Executive

Engineer, Karnataka vs. Shivalinga (2002-LLR-0-327), the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Labour

Court which held that the abnormal delay in approaching the Labour Office would be fatal to the case and on that

basis rejected the reference. It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler in the Respondent

Company on 15.9.1985 and promoted as Coal Filler w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The petitioner was issued Charge Sheet No.

OCM/130/1967 dated 2.7.2001 under Company's Standing Order Nos. 25(37), 25(25) and 25(3) and the charges

leveled against him are as follows:-

25.37- Taking up of employment with any other employer or carrying on any business or trade, without the

permission of the Management;

25.25 - Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

25.3 - Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in conjunction with another or others of any lawful

or reasonable order of a superior.

The Petitioner received the above charge sheet and submitted his explanation vide letter dated 22.7.2001 denying all

the above charges. A full length domestic enquiry into the above charges leveled against the Petitioner was

commenced on 31.7.2001, held in different dates and finally concluded on 10.8.2001. The Petitioner has fully

participated in the proceedings and the Petitioner did not prefer to cross-examine the Management Witnesses on the

statements deposed by them on behalf of the Management and was given fair opportunity to defend his case. A copy

of enquiry proceedings and enquiry report were supplied to the Petitioner vide 2^nd Show Cause Notice No.

RG.IV/28A/1739, dated 21.8.2001 advising the Petitioner to submit his representation, if any within seven days from

the date of receipt of the letter. The Petitioner has submitted his representation on 6.9.2001. On proven misconduct

the Petitioner was reverted to his substantial post of Coal Filler vide Order dated 1.4.2002. Aggrieved by this order,

the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 12817 of 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the

same is pending. It is submitted that the Petitioner was again issued with Charge Sheet No. BHP/KTK.5/R06/738,

dated 3.3.2005 as he committed misconduct under Company's Standing Order Nos. 25.37, 25.17 and 25.25 which

reads as follows.

4200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.37 Taking up of employment with any other employer or carrying on any business or trade, without the permission

of the Management;

25.17 - Making accusations or allegations against a superior or an officer of the Company without any basic proofs.

25.25 - Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

The Petitioner received the above charge sheet on 3.3.2005 and submitted his explanation vide letter dated 6.3.2005

denying the charges. The explanation submitted by the Petitioner was found to be not satisfactory as domestic

enquiry was ordered by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Accordingly an Enquiry Notice bearing No.BHP/KTK.5/ R-

008/ 738, dated 3.3.2005 was issued advising the Petitioner to appear for the Enquiry on 10.11.2005 at 3.30 PM at

the office of Superintendent of Mines, KTK.S Incline, Bhupalpalli Area. The Petitioner received enquiry notice and

participated in the enquiry. A full length domestic enquiry into the above changes levelled against the Petitioner was

commenced on 10.11.2005, held on different dates and finally concluded on 13.7.2006. The Enquiry was conducted

into the above charge sheet and the Petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry. Enquiry was conducted by the

Enquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was given full and fair opportunity to

defend his case. It is submitted that the Petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry but failed to defend his case as

he has no case to defend. On the other hand the Management Witnesses have produced the relevant records /

information. The charges leveled against the Petitioner under Company's Standing Orders 25(25) and 25(37) were

proved. As the misconduct is grave and serious in nature and the Petitioner has repeated the same nature of

misconduct he was dismissed from the services of the company w.e.f. 14.8.2007 vide Order No. BHP/PER/20-D/2977

dated 14.8.2007. Even after giving him an opportunity on earlier occasion by awarding lesser punishment the

petitioner has not changed. In fact, the Petitioner has still involved and continued the same misconduct which is

against Company Rules. Further the Petitioner is neglecting his duties and committed misconduct of absenting as has

been committed on the earlier occasion. Disciplinary Action taken on earlier occasion by imposing lesser punishment

anticipating change in the attitude of the workman has not yielded any result. The charges leveled against the

petitioner were proved by the Enquiry Officer in second occasion also. It is submitted that the contention of the

petitioner that the whole enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a predetermined notion to

put the petitioner to extreme hardship of dismissal from service is utterly incorrect. The Enquiry Proceedings were

conducted by the Enquiry Officer following principles of natural justice and giving every opportunity to the charge

sheeted employee to defend his case. The petitioner himself accepted his mistake in the enquiry and failed to

substantiate his statement that he was absent due to some personal problems with any documentary evidence. He

further accepted in the enquiry proceedings that he remained absent. Therefore, the allegations made in this regard

are false. The Petitioner has not raised any objection to the documents marked by the Management witnesses, at any

point of time. It is submitted that the allegations that the Enquiry Officer failed to take into consideration that M/s.

Sai Construction was registered on 23.10.1998 wherein the Petitioner's Wife and son are the partners is not correct. It

is submitted that it is amply proved that the Petitioner was carrying on business on the name of the firm and the

absenteeism from the duty is also proved. It is to submit that the whenever the Petitioner was absented the same is

informed to his superiors is denied. Further that the Petitioner was on medical leave is also denied. The Petitioner

has neither produced any record nor medical treatment papers during the time of enquiry nor at the time of submitting

his explanation to the 2^nd show cause notice. It is submitted that the Petitioner got issued pseudonymous petition in

the name of his wife is false. If really the Petitioner's wife and son are carrying on the business activity, he might have

made a representation to the Company with regard to the affairs of their firm for which the Petitioner cannot be found

fault with. It is to submit that the Petitioner was earlier drafted to his substantial post as Coal Filler on proven

charges of misconduct. But lesser punishment was awarded with an intention that he will change his attitude.

Despite that, the petitioner has not changed his attitude and committing misconduct of absenting habitually from his

duties apart from indulging in other misconducts as charged in charge sheet. Under the circumstances, the

Management have no other option except to dismiss him from the services of the Company. It is to submit that the

Petitioner was given an opportunity to appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e., Director (PA&W), Kothagudem and

accordingly the Petitioner has submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority vide his representation dated 23.8.2007.

After going through the Appeal, the Petitioner's past record and enquiry report, the Appellate Authority has confirmed

the penalty of dismissal as there are no extenuation circumstances to set aside the Order of penalty of dismissal.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

The Departmental Enquiry held legal and valid vide order dated 21.4.2017.

Heard arguments of the Learned Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent counsels. Both parties have also

filed written submissions.

On the basis of rival pleadings and contentions of Petitioner and Respondent the following issues

emerge for determination:-

Whether the Departmental Enquiry held against the Petitioner is legal and valid?

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4201

II.

Whether the action of the Respondent in dismissing the Petitioner from service vide proceeding

No.BHP/KTKS/R10/3014 dated 14.8.2007 is illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate to the charges levelled

against him and is liable to be quashed as alleged by the Petitioner?

III.

If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?

FINDINGS:-

Point No.I:-

Departmental Enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 21.4.2017.

This Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Point No.II:-

Petitioner submits that he joined the service of the Respondent Company as Badli Filler on

16.9.1985. While working as General Mazdoor, O.C.-I Ramagumdam Area, he was issued with charge sheet dated

2.7.2001 alleging that he is executing plantation works on contract at Godavarikhani and Bhupalapalli area during

1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and that a partnership firm in the name of M/s Sai Constructions was registered. Further,

it was alleged that he continued to absent for duties during 1997 to 2000. Further, it was alleged that he contested as

independent candidate for the post of Councilor in Ward No. 13 of Ramagumdam Area in the year 1998 Municipal

Elections without obtaining permission from the Company. It is further submitted that after receipt of the charge

sheet the petitioner submitted his explanation vide representation dated 4.7.2001 denying the charge levelled against

him. After conducting the enquiry Respondent issued office order dated 1.4.2002 reverting him to the post of Coal

Filler with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed W.P.No. 12187/2002 and the same is

pending before the Hon'ble High Court for consideration.

Further, the Petitioner submits that he was again issued with charge sheet dated 3.3.2005 alleging that the

petitioner's wife is a partner of M/s Sai Constructions and that the petitioner is personally supervising the plantation

works during the last 3 years and he is interfering with the works carried by the staff of Forest Departments and that

he has submitted pseudonymous complaint against the Manager, Forestry, Bhoopalapally in the name of his wife Smt.

T. Vijaya and that he was absented for duties during the year 2003-04. For which the Petitioner submitted

explanation. Without considering the explanation in proper prospective, an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry

officer submitted his report holding that the petitioner found guilty except the misconduct under Standing Order No.

27.17 all other allegations held proved by the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 2.9.2006. It is submitted that

there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to show that the Petitioner had committed irregularities as alleged

in the charge sheet and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and unjustified. It is also submitted that the

Enquiry Officer whole submitting the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority has not give opportunity to the

Petitioner for furnishing the explanation. Further, it is submitted that the Respondent after considering the enquiry

report has issued the office order dated 14.8.2007 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. It is also

submitted that no person can be imposed with double punishment for the same set of charges. The charge framed

against the Petitioner in the charge sheet dated 3.3.2005 and earlier charge sheet dated 2.7.2001 are identical and

one and the same. Thus, intention of the Departmental Enquiry itself is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Hence,

the order of removal of the name of the Petitioner from the rolls of the Company is illegal and arbitrary.

10.

On the other hand, Respondent has refuted the allegations and submissions made by the Petitioner against

the impugned order of dismissal of the Petitioner from the service.

11.

Perused the record. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on three grounds. Firstly, It is urged that

there is no evidence on record against the Petitioner to substantiate the charges levelled against him and order of

dismissal is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to law. Perusal of the record goes to reveal that the legality and validity

of the domestic enquiry has already been held legal and valid vide order dated 21.4.2017. As far as the question of

sufficiency of the evidence to substantiate the charge against the Petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that it is the

jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to look into the material in enquiry proceeding and give the finding on the

basis of the material available on record and to pass the order of punishment. Respondent has filed documents

pertaining to the enquiry proceedings, that goes to show that the Enquiry Officer in his report has taken into

consideration the evidences of all the witnesses recorded during the enquiry and on the basis of the oral and

documentary evidence he has given the finding in the enquiry report and found the Petitioner guilty of the charges

levelled against him. The enquiry has been conducted by following principles of natural justice by affording fair

opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. As per enquiry report Petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled

against him under Standing Orders No.25.37 and 25.25. The Enquiry Officer has recorded the finding that charge

under Standing Orders No.25.17 found not proved against the Petitioner. It delineates that Enquiry Officer has

applied his mind to the evidence recorded during the enquiry proceeding, on record before submission of enquiry

report to Disciplinary Authority. Further, it is evident that the enquiry proceeding dated 10.11.2005 was conducted

in the presence of the Petitioner and during the proceeding answering to the question that whether he admit the

charges levelled against him under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.25 for habitual late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet during the year 2003-04

delinquent replied,

4202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Yes. I am admitting the charges levelled against me under Company Standing Orders No.25(25) for habitually late

attendance or Habitually absence from duty without sufficient cause on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet

during the year 2003 & 2004. I am denying the charges mentioned under Company Standing Order 25(17) & 25(37).

Mentioned in the said charge sheet and I plead not guilty.”

Thus, the charge under Standing Orders No.25.25 has been admitted by the Petitioner during the enquiry proceeding

and the rest of charge under Standing Orders No.25.37 has been substantiated by the oral and documentary evidence.

The contention of the Petitioner that charge is not proved against him due to want of evidence is not tenable.

12.

As regards the charge under Standing Orders No.25.37 against the delinquent Respondent contended that

Petitioner during his service has been continuing his private business of executing plantation contract in the name of

Benami firm and he also took the contract for supervision of the plantation in that area during the last three years.

Whereas under the provision of Standing Orders No.25.37 of the Company, the taking up other employment on

Trade or profession with any other employer or carrying on business during the employment of Respondent without

the permission of the Management is gross misconduct. It is contended that during the enquiry proceeding sufficient

evidence was collected by the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the charge levelled under Standing Orders No.25.37

against the Petitioner. Perused the record. I find force in the contention of Respondent, therefore, the submission

of the Petitioner not acceptable.

13.

Petitioner vehemently urged that once he has been punished for the charge under Standing Orders

No.25.37 of the Company vide order dated 1.4.2002, reverting him to the post of coal filler and now again he has

been charge sheeted for the same conduct under the Standing Orders No.25.37 of the Company vide charge sheet

dated 3.3.2005. It is submitted that once he has been inflicted with punishment of deduction in rank for the charge

under Standing Orders No.25.37 and again he has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal for the same charge

under Standing Orders No.25.37 which is against the principle of double jeopardy and also contrary to law.

14.

Perused the record. It is not a trait of law that once the Petitioner has been held guilty and punished for the

misconduct under the Company’s Standing Orders No.25.37 why he can not be charge sheeted again for the

misconduct under Standing Orders No.25.37 if he repeat such misconduct. Whereas in the present matter on

earlier occasion Petitioner was charge sheeted under Standing Orders No.25.37, in the year 2001 for which he was

awarded the punishment of reversion in the year 2002, but again he continued to commit same misconduct under the

Company’s Standing Orders No.25.37, therefore, the Respondent Management is conferred with authority to initiate

the Departmental Enquiry against such employee and to award the punishment commensurate to gravity of

misconduct committed by the delinquent. On earlier occasion Petitioner committed misconduct under Standing

Orders No.25.37 and was found guilty and was imposed lesser punishment of reversion to lower post with a view to

give a chance to reform his conduct. But when the Petitioner repeated the same misconduct under Company’s

Standing Orders No.25.37 and 25.25, the gravity of misconduct was viewed serious by Respondent Management and

Petitioner was imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, in view of the discussion, I am of the

considered view that the action of the Respondent in dismissing the Petitioner is legal and justified.

15.

As far as the question of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the perusal of the record goes to reveal

on that earlier occasion Petitioner has been held guilty of the same charge under Company’s Standing Orders

No.25.37, and 25.25 and was imposed punishment of reversion to the post of coal filler, and again he committed

same grave misconduct under Standing Orders No.25.25 and 25.37 and Respondent Management after holding the

Departmental Enquiry against him found him guilty of charge. The repetition of the same misconduct by the

Petitioner in breach of the Company’s Standing Orders No.25.25 and 25.37 makes the charge serious and grave and

in such circumstances, a reasonable employer would have no option except to dismiss such employee from the

service. Therefore, punishment of dismissal awarded to the Petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of charge

levelled against him and commensurate to the charge of misconduct committed by him under Company’s Standing

Orders No.25.25 and 25.37.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

16.

Point No.III:

In view of the fore gone discussion at Points No.I & II, it is held that the Petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

This Point is answered accordingly.

Result:

The action of the Respondent Management is held legal and justified. Accordingly Petition is dismissed

and Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4203

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 6th

day of October, 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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2023

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

ljdkj ससंगरेनी कोजलयरी कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/47/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंिन एन., उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st November, 2023

S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 191/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Singareni Colliery Company Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/11/2023.

[No. L-22012/47/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N., Dy. Director

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 3^rd day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 191/2014

Between:

The President,

(Sri Bandari Satyanarayana)

Rashtriya Collieries Mazdoor Sangh (RCMS),

Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,

Jaffar nagar, Mancherial – 504208.

Adilabad Distt. (A.P.)

….. Petitioner

AND

4204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur – 504 303.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Bhagwanth Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/47/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 8.8.2014

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

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area,

Adilabad Distt. in terminating the services of Sri Gudala Rayalingu, Ex-Coal Filler, RK-8 Inc., Sreerampur

Area with effect from 5.12.2002 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 191/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as an employee on 11.2.1987, and he become permanent Employee

during the course of service in the Company. The Service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by various

standing orders of Company. It is submitted that the Petitioner could not attend to his duties during the year 2006 due

to his ill health, then Respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22.4.2001 and the Petitioner submitted a Reply on

20.6.2001 which was not considered by the Respondent Company and he was dismissed from Service through

proceedings No. SRP/PER35A/02/4561, dated 5.12.2002. It is submitted that the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the

Higher authorities which went in vein, and authority concerned mechanically upheld the orders of Chief General

Manager, Srirampur Division. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was put in 3 years of service without any red

remark and the Petitioner has got still 20 years of service for superannuation. Further, it is submitted that removing

from services of the Respondent, person who rendered more than 2 years of qualified service is arbitrary, illegal and

against to the principles of natural justice and also against to the Provisions of the Standing Orders of the Company.

It is submitted that the Petitioner was given employment for the post as Coal Filler. So giving employment to the

Petitioner is subject to availability of vacancy of work. Whenever Petitioner used to go for job there is no work but

there appears to be a contributory negligence. It is submitted that Respondent company one way given employment

and other way dismissed from service. The intention of the company is crystal clear i.e., to remove the masses i.e

excessive labour. Further, it is submitted that the company adopted unfair labour practice and victimization. The

Petitioner could not opt Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of employment, but opted employment. Now the

Petitioner has got re-option to claim compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in lieu of dependent employment through

Settlement 20.11.2009 if the employment is not provided. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent amounts

to "Hire and Fire" which has no force in the Industrial Jurisprudence. It is submitted that the “Award And

Settlements" both are decrees in terms of Industrial disputes Act. Further, it is submitted that there was settlement

before the Regional Labour Commissioner at Hyderabad, that those who were removed from 1.1.2000 to 30.12.2010,

those cases can be considered by the Management as per the Circular P.40/5911/IR/33, dated 10.3.2000 and the

Petitioner was called for interview, but the case of the petitioner was not considered for re-employment as per the

settlement. If the petitioner was given employment he would have been put in more than additional 20years of

service. Therefore non-consideration of settlement by the company is very bad and against the law. That the

Respondent did not conduct enquiry properly and no documents were given to the Petitioner and no subsisting

allowance was paid to him. The Respondent obtained thumb impressions on enquiry report and conducted enquiry

and Petitioner do not know the English language and enquiry conducted by the Respondent without mentioning

contents therein is arbitrary, illegal and against to the Principles of natural Justice. That the Petitioner prays the

Hon'ble Court to decide the validity of Domestic enquiry as Preliminary issue. It is submitted that after removal from

the service by the Respondent to the Petitioner dated 13.10.2008 the Petitioner and children of Petitioner are fallen on

roads with untold sufferings. The relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent is still continuing and the

Petitioner not yet reached the age of superannuation. Hence, prayed to direct the Respondent to reinstate the

Petitioner into Service with continuity and other attendant benefits and with full back wages, by setting aside

dismissal order passed by Respondent.

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

It is submitted that the RCMS Union who raised the dispute before the conciliation officer, has not filed any Claim

Statement before this Hon'ble Tribunal and as such Sri Gudala Rayalingu who filed the Claim Statement is not

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4205

maintainable and considering that the petitioner-union has no case to represent before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is

submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Company on proved charge of absenteeism vide

letter No.SRP/PER/ 35A/02/5461, dated 5-12-2002 with immediate effect i.e. 05.12.2002. It is submitted that there

is an abnormal delay of about 12 years in raising the dispute by the Petitioner and therefore the petition is liable to be

dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to decide the

delay in raising the dispute as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that the delinquent workman was dismissed on

proved charges after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. That the

validity of domestic enquiry be decided as a preliminary issue. In this regard, it is submitted that this Court permit

the respondent to produce the evidence in case it is held that domestic enquiry is not valid. It is submitted that the

Petitioner, Sri Gudala Rayalingu, S/o Durgaiah as mentioned in his Claim Petition filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal,

and Sri Gaddala Rayamallu S/o. Durgaiah as recorded in the Company Records, is the same person. It is submitted

that Sri Gaddala Rayamallu S/o.Durgaiah, Employee Code 2825864, Coal Filler, RK.8 Incline, Sreerampur Area of

the Respondent Company, was initially appointed in the Company on 24.3.1987 as Floating Badli filler and

regularised as Coal Filler with effect from 1.1.1995. While he was working at RK.8 Incline, Sreerampur Area, he had

put in just 78 musters during the calendar year 2000 and remained absent to duties unauthorisedly on all other days in

the year, which constituted misconduct under Company's Standing Orders No.25.25. Hence, he was issued with a

charge sheet bearing No. RK8/5/2k1/1197, dated 22-4-2001 under Company's Standing Orders No. 25.25 for the

misconduct committed by him which reads as follows:

"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause."

It is submitted that though the petitioner had received the charge sheet, he did not submit his written explanation to

the charge sheet issued to him nor did he appear for the enquiry fixed on 5.5.2001. Further, enquiry notices were sent

to the petitioner to attend for enquiry on 10.8.2001 and 14.9.2001. The petitioner received the same on 2.8.2001 and

on 24.9.2001 but did not attend the enquiry fixed on the above dates. Finally an enquiry notice dated 20.9.2001 was

sent to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 13.10.2001. Though the petitioner had received the enquiry notice he

did not attend the enquiry on the said date. It is submitted that in spite of ample opportunity was given to the

petitioner to attend the enquiry and to defend his case, he did not attend for the enquiry on any of the above said

dates. Hence, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted on 13.10.2001 by the Enquiry Officer. The Presenting Officer

and the management witnesses deposed their evidence. Further, the documentary evidence was produced by the

management to substantiate the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence

adduced in the enquiry and after appreciating all the recorded evidence, submitted his report in which the petitioner

was held to be guilty of the charges leveled against him under Company's Standing Orders No.25.25. It is submitted

that the petitioner was supplied a copy of the Enquiry report and proceedings vide letter NoRK8/43/R/6B/2002/213,

dated 24.1.2002 wherein he was advised to submit his representation if any, against the findings of the enquiry officer

within seven days of receipt of the letter. The petitioner received the letter dated 24.1.2002 along with its enclosures.

On this, the petitioner had submitted a representation which was received on 1.2.2002 stating that due to his ill health

for two years he did not attend for duty, and not to become his three children as orphans, he requested the

management to excuse him and to allow him for duty. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after going

through the entire enquiry proceedings, and after evaluating all the evidence on record, and the representation

submitted by the petitioner, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. Since the charges levelled and proved

in the enquiry were grave and serious in nature warranting punishment of dismissal and as there were no extenuating

circumstances to take a lenient view, the petitioner was dismissed from Company's Services with effect from

5.12.2002 vide letter No.SRP/PER/35A/02/5461, dated 5.12.2002. It is submitted that the petitioner was a chronic

and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190 attendances as expected from an underground workman during

the years from 1998 to 2000. Further, he remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient cause

and did not bother to communicate to the mine authorities about his inability at any point of time, which clearly

establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. The Respondent Company has been operating Dispensaries,

Area Hospitals and Main Hospital to extend medical facilities/aid to its employees, their dependant family members.

The petitioner, if really was suffering from health problems, he ought to have reported sick in Colliery Hospital; he

ought to have requested for sanction of leave to his credit or for sanction of loss of pay leave, but without availing

these channels, he chose to remain absent from duties unauthorisedly. Therefore, the management was constrained to

dismiss the petitioner, from the service of the Company with effect from 5.12.2002. The petitioner was dismissed

from the company's service on proved charges of misconduct under Company's Standing Orders 25.25. It is

submitted that citing some or other reason for absenteeism is not sufficient but such a cause/reason should be

substantiated by the petitioner with documentary evidence. It is not the case of submission of documentary evidence

by the petitioner and not taking into account such evidence by Respondent Company before awarding the punishment.

The petitioner had put in the following musters per year during the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, which indicate the fact

that the petitioner was never regular to duties.

4206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 25, 2023/AGRAHAYANA 4, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Year

Attendance

1997

143

1998

128

1999

111

The further contention of the petitioner that since he got another 20 years of service for superannuation, removing the

service of the petitioner with more than 2 years of qualified service is illegal and against principles of natural Justice

and also against the provisions of Standing Orders of the Company, is totally incorrect and meritless. If he had left

over service of 20 years, the petitioner had to be very careful and discharge his responsibilities and duties with

commitment. Length of service already rendered and the period of service left over are not the criteria for initiating

disciplinary action and imposing penalty. Depending upon the seriousness of the misconduct committed and the

gravity of the misconduct established, penalty will be imposed. The petitioner committed the misconduct of

remaining absent to duties unauthorizedly and failed to correct himself in spite of giving sufficient opportunity; his

attendance before and after issuance of charge sheet was found to be very poor; not complied the laid down

procedure of reporting sick in Colliery Hospital; communicating inability to attend duties to the Head of the Mine and

even not requested for sanction of loss of pay leave and not submitted documentary evidence in support of alleged ill-

health and also failed in putting in 190 musters at least in any one of the calendar years over the 3 calendar years from

1998 to 2000. This is a clear cut indication of indifferent attitude of the petitioner towards his employment. The action

of respondents in dismissing the petitioner is neither arbitrary, illegal nor against the principles of natural Justice and

also not against the provisions of Standing Orders as claimed by the petitioner. It is submitted that giving

employment to the petitioner is subject to availability of vacancy of work and that whenever petitioner used to go for

job there was no work but there appears to be contributory negligence, is denied as there exists no truth. The

petitioner was never regular to duties and as such the question of returning him after coming for duty does not arise.

It is to submit that in the Respondent Company in a Mine in each shift 400 to 500 employees will work. Naturally

among such quantum of employees, few will surely go on authorised leave or report sick and in their places

management provides employment to Badlies and never the management returns an employee after booking his IN

muster at the Mine but provides him job and more so the petitioner was being a permanent employee, the question of

not providing work to him did not arise at all. The petitioner in his representation received on 1.2.2002 admitted that

as he remained absent from duty, because of his ill health and he was not regular to duties and requested to excuse his

mistake, but now makes false allegations that he was not shown work and was returned whenever he went to mine for

job. The respondent company will never have a predetermined notion against any of its employee and if at all excess

manpower is found it has other legal measures to over come such crisis. It has already introduced Voluntary

Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake); Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme; Voluntary Retirement

Scheme (Low Productive Employees) but never used the disciplinary action of dismissal to eliminate surplus

manpower. The Respondent Company never indulged in unfair labour practice and victimization as alleged by the

petitioner. The respondent company had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to provide an opportunity to the

employees dismissed on the ground of absenteeism for appointment as Badli Fillers afresh. In the Memorandum of

Settlement dated 09.08.2011 arrived at with the then Recognized Union SCWU, AlTUC it was agreed to review the

cases of employees dismissed on account of absenteeism during the period from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2010 and the

conditions are that (1) the dismissed employee should be below 55 years as on the date of MoS i.e. as on 09.08.2011;

(2) the dismissed employee should have put in 190 musters if an underground employee and 240 musters if surface

employee, in any two calendar years out of the 5 years prior to the year of dismissal (or) should have put in 150

musters (underground employee), 200 musters (surface employee) every year in the previous four years of dismissal

year and (3) these dismissed employees will be interviewed by High Power Committee and on the basis of High

Power Committee's recommendations subject to medical fitness the candidate will be given appointment as Badli

Filler Underground. In the present case, the petitioner is not satisfying the stipulations and hence his case was not

considered for appointment afresh as Badli Filler. Without qualifying himself for reappointment the petitioner cannot

claim that if he is considered for reemployment as per Settlement he would have put in 20 years of service, is not

tenable. Enquiry Officer had held the enquiry proceedings duly following the principles of natural justice and though

the petitioner had received the charge sheet and enquiry notices, he did not attend and participate in the enquiry and

hence the enquiry was held ex-parte. It is submitted that when the petitioner did not participate and defend his case

in the enquiry and the enquiry was conducted ex-parte by the enquiry officer, the allegations of the petitioner that

enquiry was not conducted properly, no documents were given to the petitioner, no subsisting allowance was paid to

him, and that thumb impressions on enquiry report were obtained and that petitioner did not know English etc. are

baseless. If the enquiry proceedings were not conducted properly, the petitioner could have submitted his objections

when he was supplied the copy of enquiry proceedings and report. It is submitted that without doing so all these

years, now after a lapse of 12 years, the petitioner is claiming that enquiry was not conducted properly and that it is

arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural Justice, is not correct. It is submitted that the concerned workman

should have been more careful and conscious of his responsibilities, towards his family members and towards his job.

He failed to realize his mistake in spite of giving opportunities and paid no heed to the advice of his higher authorities

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 25, 2023/अग्रिायण 4, 1945

4207

in regard to be regular to duties. For the fault and mistakes of the petitioner he cannot hold the respondent Company

responsible. It is the petitioner himself who has to be blamed for this situation, which is the result of his negligent

behaviour and callous attitude towards his job. In view of above, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid

of merits.

The enquiry conducted by the Respondent is held legal and valid by order dated 22.7.2019.

Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties u/s. 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947 as well as perused

written arguments.

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

Whether the industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner after an inordinate delay of 12 years and

the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches?

II.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner is legal and valid?

III.

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in terminating the

Petitioner workman from service is legal and justified?

IV.

Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner for his misconduct under Clause 25.25 of Company

Standing Orders is commensurate to the charges proved and the same is disproportionate?

To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

FINDINGS

Point No.II: It is submitted in this regard that the Departmental Enquiry held against the workman has been

held legal and valid vide order dated 22.7.2019.

This point answered accordingly.

Point No.I:

The counsel for the Respondent submits that Sec.10(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 provides that the

application for raising industrial dispute shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before expiry of 3years from

the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise, termination of service as specified in the sub-section(1).

Since the Petitioner was dismissed from the service of the Company on proved charge of absenteeism vide order

dated 5.12.2002 with immediate effect i.e., 5.12.2002, there is abnormal delay of more than 12 years in raising the

dispute by the Petitioner. Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

It is also submitted that the question of delay in raising the dispute should be decided as preliminary issue. As per

averment in the petition by the Petitioner, he was terminated from the service by the Respondent vide order dated

5.12.2002 on the proved charge of misconduct under the Departmental enquiry. Whereas the industrial dispute has

been filed by the Petitioner in the year 2014 after the delay of 12 years from date of termination but, Petitioner has no

where mentioned or explained the reason for such delay in raising the ID. Therefore, the claim of Petitioner has

become stale due to delay and latches.

In this context, following decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court are relevant.

In the case of Haryana Sate Cooperation Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam reported in2005(5)

SCC 91, have held,

“that a delay of seven years in approaching the Labour Court to be relevant factor to refuse relief of