7931 GI/2023

(4439)

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. 53]

नई दिल् ली, दिसम् बर 31, 2023—िनवरी 6, 2024, िजनवार/पौष 10—पौष 16, 1945

No. 53]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 31, 2023—JANUARY 6, 2024, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 10— PAUSHA 16, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न पष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि पष क संकलन के प 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—उप- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रजल, 2023

का.आ. 1905.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

(,pvkjMh-Vh), Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy., t;iqj; ftyk izcU/kd] Hkkjr lapkkj fuxe fy., >kykokM;

mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy., vdysjk] ds izca/kr+= ds lac} fu;kstdksa vkSj Jhefr ekaxhckbZ]

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZV vkS|ksfxd U;kf/kdj.k dksVk] fookn esa औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण कोटा, पंचाट आई

टी (केंरी )-

को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो

केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 22/03/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल- 40012/67/2007-vkbZvkj(डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-11012024-251269

CG-DL-W-11012024-251269

4440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th April, 2023

S.O. 1905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award I.T.(Central)- 14/2008(CIS&71/2014) of the Industrial Tribunal Kota, as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Assistant Director

(HRD-T), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jaipur; District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Aklera,

and Smt. Mangi Bai Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

22/03/2023.

[No. L- 40012/67/2007- IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqyXud

U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jh egs'k iqusBk] vkj-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½

funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&14@2008¼lhvkbZ,l&71@2014½

¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh 060001602008½

fnukad LFkkfir% 17@06@2008

izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-

,y&40012@67@2007¼vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½½

fn- 23@05@2008

funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947

e/;

Jherh ekaxhckbZ iRuh Lo- y{ehukjk;.k] U;w E;qfufliy Hkou ds ihNs] jko.k th dk pkSd] vdysjk]

ftyk >kykokM +¼jkt-½A

&&izkFkhZ;k Jfed

,oa

1&lgk;d funs'kd¼,pvkjMh&k½] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy-]

dk;kZy; eq[; egkizcU/kd]nwj lapkj jkt-] nwj lapkj ifje.My] Hkkjr ljdkj fuxe fy-] t;iqjA

2&ftyk izcU/kd] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy-] >kykokM+A

3&mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy-] vdysjk

ftyk >kykokM+A

&&vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd

mifLFkr

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&

Jh Mh- vkj- f}osnh

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&

Jh iq"isUnz flag pkSgku

%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%

fn-% 29@06@2022

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 23@05@2008 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]

1947 ¼ftls rnqijkUr **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ

lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&

"Whether the action of management of Sub-Divisional Officer, BSNL, Aklera, in terminating the services of

their workman Smt. Mangi Bai w.e.f. 01/03/2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2&mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ;k

Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ;k dks vizkFkhZx.k

fu;kstd ftyk izcU/kd] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] >kykokM+ oxSjg }kjk o"kZ 1991 ds iwoZ ls nwjHkk"k dsUnz] vdysjk esa ikuh Hkjus] fiykus o

lQkbZ dk;Z ds fy, fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk] rc ls og yxkrkj dk;Z djrh pyh vk jgh FkhA izkFkhZ;k dh HkkWfr gh vU; nwjHkk"k dsUnzksa ij

dk;Zjr Jfed Jherh NksVh ckbZ dks Hkokuhe.Mh ftyk >kykokM+ o Jfed euksgj rFkk jkefd'ku dks >kykokM+ esa yxHkx rhu o"kZ iwoZ LFkkbZ

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4441

fu;qfDr ns nh x;h tksfd izkFkhZ;k ls dfu"B Fks] tcfd izkFkhZ;k }kjk mls LFkkbZ fd;s tkus gsrq vkosnu izLrqr djus ij vizkFkhZ ua- 2 us ;g dgrs

gq, euk dj fn;k fd izkFkhZ;k us yxkrkj dke ugha djds dsoy dHkh&dHkh gh dke fd;k gSA izkFkhZ;k us o"kZ 1991 ls Qjojh] 2007 rd

yxkrkj vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gkW dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk mlus vizkFkhZx.k dks vfHkHkk"kd ds ek/;e ls uksfVl Hkh fnyok;k Fkk] fdUrq uksfVl izkfIr ds ckn

mls fn-01@03@2007 ls lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k] tcfd lsok i`Fkddj.k@NaVuh ls iwoZ mls uk rks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru o eqvkotk fn;k

o uk gh izLrkfor fd;k tksfd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ls mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd

mls mDr izdkj ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vuqfpr o voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq, fn- 01@03@2007 ls gh lsok dh fujUrjrk] fiNys lEiw.kZ osru

o lsok ykHkksa lfgr iqu% lsok esa LFkkfir fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkos o lkFk gh dfu"B Jfedksa dks LFkk;h fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls gh

LFkk;h fd;k tkosA

3&vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ;k dks o"kZ 1991 vFkok blls iwoZ

fu;kstu esa ugha j[kk x;k] vFkkZr og dHkh vizkFkhZx.k ds fu;kstu esa gh ugha jgh] vr% mlds vU; Jfedksa ls dfu"Brk o ofj"Brk dk iz'u gh

mRiUu ugha gksrkA izkFkhZ;k ds vkosnu ij tkWp mijkUr mlds }kjk fujUrj ,oa iw.kZdkfyd dk;Z fd;k tkuk ugha ik;k x;k rFkk vkdfLed

;nk&dnk lsok iznkrk¼Bsdk½ ds :i esa dk;Z dj fy;s tkus ls og dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA dFku fd;k gS fd tc izkFkhZ;k

us dk;Z gh ugh fd;k rks mls fn- 01@03@2007 ls vizkFkhZ Øe 3 }kjk lsok ls gVk;s tkus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrk vkSj ,sls esa

vf/kfu;ekUrxZr mls dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru o eqvkotk fn;k tkuk vko';d ugha jgkA fo'ks"k dFku tokc esa vafdr fd;k gS fd

nSfud lQkbZ dk;Z gsrq dk;kZy; izHkkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk fdlh Hkh lsok iznkrk dh lsok,a ys yh tkrh gS tks dk;Z izfrfnu ek= ,d ?kUVs ls Hkh de

dk gksrk gS vkSj ekg esa ftrus ?kaVs dh lsok,a nh tkrh gS] ml vuqlkj Hkqxrku dj fn;k tkrk gS rFkk ikuh fiykus gsrq fdlh Jfed dh lsok,a

ugha yh tkrhA izkFkhZ;k us vkdfLed :i ls iwoZ o"kksZa esa ek= 2&3 ekg gh lsok iznkrk ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj mls mldk Hkqxrku fd;k

tk pqdk gSA vU; nwjHkk"k dsUnzksa esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa dks LFkk;h fu;qfDr nsuk Lohdkj gSA vUr esa izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd izkFkhZ;k dk Dyse fujk/kkj

rF;ksa dk gksus ls lO;; fujLr fd;k tkosA

4&lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ;k Jfed ekaxhckbZ rFkk vizkFkhZ lk{kh jk/ks';ke eh.kk] tsVhvks ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr ft, ftuls ,d&nwljs i{k }kjk ftjg

dh x;hA mHk; i{k dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA

5&mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h tks cgl eq[;r% muds }kjk izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ij gh vk/kkfjr jgh gSA izkFkhZ;k i{k

us viuh cgl leFkZu esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar vkj-,e-;sYyV~h cuke vfl- ,DthD;wfVo bathfu;j&vihy ¼flfoy½ la[;k 5124@2004&fu.kZ; fn-

07@11@2005] jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWfQlj&2017¼2½ McY;w,ylh ¼jkt-½ 637 rFkk xkSjh'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt-&,l-lh- flfoy

vihy la[;k 3701@2015&fu.kZ; fn-16 vizSy] 2015 dk voyEc fy;k gSA

6&i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k o izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds v/;;uksijkUr ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA izkFkhZ;k us vius Dyse esa ;g rF;

of.kZr fd;k gS fd og o"kZ 1991 ls Qjojh] 2007 rd vizkFkhZx.k dh lsok esa jgh gS vkSj mlus vdysjk VsyhQksu ,DlpsUt ij yxkrkj dk;Z

fd;k gS ftldks lkfcr djus ds fy, vdysjk esa vusd xokg ekStwn gSaA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us o"kZ 91 ls Qjojh] 2007 rd vdysjk VsyhQksu

,DlpsUt ij dk;Z djus dk rF; cryk;k gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ;k us bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh gS ftlls izFken`"V~;k ;g izdV

gks jgk gks fd mlus o"kZ 91 ls Qjojh] 2007 rd vdysjk VsyhQksu ,DlpsUt esa dk;Z fd;k gksA vizkFkhZx.k dk ;g Li"V :i ls dFku jgk gS

fd izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnuksa dh tkWp djok;s tkus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd mlus fujUrj ,oa iw.kZdkfyd :i esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gS

cfYd vkdfLed :i esa mlls ;nk&dnk lsok iznkrk¼Bsds½ ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k fy;k x;k gS vkSj tks nLrkost vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr

fd;s x;s gSa muls Hkh ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k dHkh fujUrj dk;Z ij ugha jghA izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls Hkh ,slk dksbZ Hkh nLrkost is'k ugha

fd;k x;k gS ftlls izFken`"V~;k ;g izdV gks jgk gks fd mlus Dyse izkFkZuk&i= esa of.kZr vof/k o"kZ 91 ls Qjojh] 2007 ds e/; yxkrkj dksbZ

dk;Z fd;k gksA izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa nLrkost izn'kZ McY;w-1 yxk;r McY;w-13 izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ftuesa izn'kZ McY;w-1

dk voyksdu djsa rks blls ;g dgha izdV ugha gks jgk gS fd ;g izkFkhZ;k }kjk fdl rkjh[k dks eq[; egkizcU/kd] ch,l,u,y dks fn;k x;k gS]

fdUrq eq[; egkizcU/kd dk;kZy; dh fjflIV eksgj ds vuqlkj mDr izkFkZuk&i= 5 vizSy] 2004 dks mUgsa izkIr gksuk izdV gksrk gSA mDr

izkFkZuk&i= esa izkFkhZ;k us fiNys 13 o"kksZa ls dk;Z djuk cryk;k gS] ysfdu blesa Hkh dc ls dk;Z dj jgh gS] dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gS] uk gh

blds lkFk dksbZ nLrkost eq[; egkizcU/kd dks izsf"kr fd;k gSA izn'kZ McY;w-2 tujy lsdzsV~zh] ch,l,u,y ,EiyksbZt] ubZ fnYyh dks izkFkhZ;k

}kjk izsf"kr LVkEi isij gS ftlesa mlus mls LFkk;h djokus gsrq fuosnu fd;k gS] blesa Hkh dksbZ rkjh[k vafdr ugha gS] ysfdu yxHkx 14 o"kksZ ls

vdysjk nwjlapkj foHkkx esa ikuh Hkjus o lQkbZ vkfn dk;Z djuk vafdr fd;k gSA bl LVkEi isij dh iq'r ij LVkEi os.Mj dh lhy yxh gqbZ

ftlesa foØ; ds fnol dh frfFk 19@09@05 vafdr gS] tcfd blds eq[; i`"B ij jkeukjk;.k jkBkSj uked xokg us vius gLrk{kj ds uhps

rkjh[k 20@4@2004 vafdr dh gSA bl izdkj ;g nLrkost Hkh mijksDr fojks/kkHkklksa ds ifjizs{; esa fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izn'kZ McY;w-

3 v/;{k uxjikfydk] vdysjk }kjk tujy lsØsVh] ch,l,u,y] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk x;k i= gS ftl ij 29@9@05 dh frfFk vafdr gSA

izn'kZ McY;w-4 egkizcU/kd] Hkkjr lapkj fu-fy-dksVk dks izkFkhZ;k }kjk fy[kk x;k i= is'k fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu bl i= ij izkFkhZ;k ds dgha

gLrk{kj ugha gS vkSj bl i= esa izsf"kfr dh fnukad 2@3@05 dks dkVdj 17@2@07 fy[kk gS] ysfdu mDr dfVax ij dksbZ gLrk{kj ugha gS] bl

izdkj ;g i= fdlds }kjk dc Hkstk x;k] ;g Hkh lansgkLin izdV gks jgk gSA bl i= ds pj.k la[;k 2 esa Hkh izkFkhZ;k us vdysjk VsyhQksu

,DlpsUt esa foxr 13 o"kksZa ls Msyh ostst ij dk;Z djuk crk;k gS vkSj mlds }kjk iwoZ izsf"kr i= tksfd o"kZ 2004 esa izsf"kr fd;s x;s gSa] muesa

Hkh 13 gh o"kZ dk;Z djuk crk;k gSA bl izdkj mijksDr of.kZr i=ksa ds rF;ksa esa Hkh egRoiw.kZ fcUnqvksa ij fojks/kkHkkl izdV gks jgk gSA blds

vfrfjDr izkFkhZ;k us vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa izn'kZ McY;w-8 yxk;r McY;w-13 euhvkWMZj dh jlhnsa izsf"kr djuk crk;k gS ftudk ;fn

voyksdu fd;k tk;s rks ewy jlhnsa is'k ugha dh x;h gS] mDr jlhnksa ij iksLV vkWfQl dh dksbZ eksgj Hkh vafdr ugha gSA mDr nLrkostksa esa ekg

tqykbZ] 94 dh nks jlhnsa gSa ftuesa ,d jlhn ikuh Hkjus ds Hkqxrku :- 60@& dh o nwljh jlhn lQkbZ pktsZt ds Hkqxrku :- 40@& dh gS]

vxyh nwljh jlhnsa ikuh Hkjus o lQkbZ dk;Z ds Hkqxrku dh Øe'k% 60@& o 40@&:i;s dh gSa vkSj blh izdkj ekg uoEcj] 94 ds ikuh Hkjus

o lQkbZ dk;Z dh jlhnsa dze'k% 60@& o 40@&:i;s dh gSaA bu nLrkostkr ds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ;k }kjk dksbZ Hkh ,slk vU; nLrkost ftlds fd

4442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

}kjk izkFkhZ;k dks ckn ds o"kksZ esa dk;Z ds isVs vU;Fkk izdkj ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gks] izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] tcfd mldk nkSjkus ftjg esa ;g

dFku jgk gS fd mls lu~ 1994 rd euhvkWMZj ls etnwjh feyrh Fkh] mlus euhvksMZj dh lkjh jlhnsa U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij is'k dj nh gSa]

tks xqe x;h mUgsa is'k ugha fd;k gSA bl izdkj tcfd izkFkhZ;k o"kZ 1991 ls 1994 rd euhvksMZj ls Hkqxrku izkIr djuk crk jgh gS] fdUrq

mldh vksj ls ek= rhu ekg dh gh jlhnsa izLrqr dh x;h gSa ftlls ;g dgha izdV ugha gks jgk gS fd mlds }kjk vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gkW cryk;h

x;h vof/k esa vdysjk VsyhQksu ,DlpsUt esa fujUrj dk;Z fd;k x;k gksA ;gkW ;g Hkh /;ku esa j[ks tkus ;ksX; gS fd izkFkhZ;k }kjk izLrqr dh

x;h euhvkWMZj dh jlhnksa ls ,oa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tks nLrkostkr izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] muesa ikuh Hkjus rFkk lQkbZ dk;Z djus ckcr Hkqxrku

i`Fkd&i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA lQkbZ dk;Z ds Hkqxrku dh nj vyx gS rks ikuh Hkjus ds dk;Z ds Hkqxrku dh nj vyx gS vkSj tSlk fd izkFkhZ;k

crk jgh gS fd mldks vdysjk VsyhQksu ,DlpsUt esa mDr dk;Z ds fy, fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk rks fQj D;ksadj mls vyx&vyx en ls

Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk jgk bl rF; dks Hkh izkFkhZ;k }kjk Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k ls tc Hkh VsyhQksu

,DlpsUt okys dke djokrs Fks rks mls ikuh Hkjus o lQkbZ djus ds dk;Z dk vyx&vyx nj ls gh Hkqxrku djrs FksA

6& ;gka bl rF; dks Hkh n`f"Vxr j[kk tkuk mfpr gksxk fd izkFkhZ;k ds vkosnu ij vizkFkhZx.k }kjk mYysf[kr o"kksZa ds nLrkost U;k;kf/kdj.k esa

izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa vkSj lkFk esa gsejkt eh.kk] lgk- egkizcU/kd dk 'kiFk&i= Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ekaxh

x;h vof/k ds miyC/k leLr fcy okmplZ ryk'k djds vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj fn;s x;s gSa vkSj blls vf/kd fjdkWMZ foHkkx ds ikl

miyC/k ugha gSA tks nLrkost vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa] muds lEcU/k esa izFke rks izkFkhZ;k ds izfrfuf/k us mDr nLrkostkr ij

vizkFkhZ ds xokg jk/ks';ke eh.kk ls ftjg ugha dh gS vkSj f}rh; mDr nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k }kjk

vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gkW fujUrj dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k vkSj tks Hkh dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] og ek= Bsds] vFkkZr lsok iznkrk ds :i esa gh jgk gS ftuls ;gh

izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k dks tc dk;Z dh vko';drk gksrh Fkh rks og izkFkhZ;k ls dk;Z ysdj mldk Hkqxrku dj nsrs Fks D;ksafd vizkFkhZ xokg

jk/ks';ke eh.kk us ftjg esa ;g Li"Vr% dFku fd;k gS fd tks Hkh nLrkost U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa is'k fd;s x;s gSa os lc bEizsLV ds fcy gSa

rFkk deZpkjh dks bEizsLV ls gh Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk tks vkWfQl esUVhusUl dh jkf'k ls fd;k tkrk FkkA ;g Hkqxrku vkWfQl esaVsusal dh jkf'k

ls fd;k tkrk Fkk izkFkhZ;k dh mifLFkfr ds fy, dksbZ Hkh mifLFkfr jftLVj dk;kZy; esa ugha j[kk tkrk FkkA bl xokg us ;g dFku Hkh fd;k gS

fd 'kiFk i= tks Hkh fy[kk gqvk gS og fjdkWMZ ds vk/kkj ij gSA

7& bl izdkj mDr foospu ls ;gh izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gkW tks Hkh dk;Z fd;k og fujUrj izd`fr dk uk gksdj ek=

ikuh Hkjus o lQkbZ djus dk gh va'kdkyhu :i esa jgk gS rFkk oks dk;Z Hkh Bsdk@lsok iznkrk ds :i esa gh jgk gS ftldk mls le;≤ ij

Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk jgk gS vkSj og ;g lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgh gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr frfFk vFkok gVus dh frfFk fn-

01@03@2007 ls Bhd iwoZ ds vfUre dyS.Mj o"kZ] vFkkZr 12 dyS.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gks

tcfd okafNr vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds fy, izkFkhZ;k dk gh ;g izFke nkf;Ro Fkk fd lsok lekfIr frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds dyS.Mj o"kZ esa fujUrj 240

fnol dk;Z djus dk rF; lkfcr djrh] fdUrq izkFkhZ;k us tks lk{; izLrqr dh gS] mlls mlds dFkuksa dh fdlh Hkh izdkj ls iqf"V ugha gksrh gS

vkSj ,sls esa vizkFkhZx.k fu;kstd }kjk mls lsok ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid fdlh Hkh izko/kku dh ikyuk fd;k tkuk vko';d

ugha jgk gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izkFkhZ }kjk crk;h x;h rFkkdfFkr fu;kstukof/k esa lsok lekfIr ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dyS.Mj ekg esa

fujUrj 240 fnu dk dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ Jfed dh lk{; ls Hkh og ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgk gS

fd mlus vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gkW lsok lekfIr frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dyS.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA 240 fnol

dk;Z djus ds rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj deZdkj ij gSA deZdkj ij 240 fnu yxkrkj dke djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS]

mlesa deZdkj }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g fy[k nsuk fd mlus 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke fd;k] i;kZIr ugha gksxk] vfirq mls

fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh;@nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks lkfcr djuk gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF; lEiq"V gks lds] ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k

esa i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls izkFkhZ ;g rF; lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgh gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr

fnukad 01@03@2007 ls Bhd iwoZ 12 dyS.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk

fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa bl laca/k esa le;≤ ij ;gh fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS&

RANIP NAGAR PALIKA VS BABUJU GABHAJI THAKORE- IX(2007) SLT 805

SC esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd LABOUR LAW- 240 days completion of

service- Burden of proof lies on workman to show he worked continuously for 240 days for preceding one year - It is

for workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove factum of being in employment of employer.

State of Gujrat vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713. esa ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus of the

management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than

240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim

was denied by the appeallant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact preceding his

termination. Filling of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient

evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a

year. No Proof of reciept of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this

period was produced by the corkman. on this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. v(2004)

LST 686=2004(8)SCC161

esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "It was the case of the

workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It

was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour and that cannot be regarded

as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4443

240 days in a year. These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC 25. No

Proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produceci. Mere Non-production

of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court to hold that the workman had worked

for 240 days as claimed."

Manager Reserve Bank of India Baglore Vs S. Mani and Others 2005 (5) SCC page

100 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd The Initial burden of proof was on the

workman to show that he had compledted 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer

was held to be erroneous.

R.M. Yellatti Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer (2006 (1) SCC 1006) 2005 AIR SCW

6103 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "Analysing the above decisions of this court,

it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act. in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that

this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240

days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness workman adducing

cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be

no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the

workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given

period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of

adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it

clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of

discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The

above judgements further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression

by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the

management. Lastly, the above judgements lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they

are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case."

08&izkFkhZ;k i{k dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izkFkhZ;k ds dk;Z ls lqlaxr nLrkost tksfd vizkFkhZ

ds dCts esa mRre lk{; ds :i esa miyC/k jgs gSa] izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSa] vr% ,sls esa vizkFkhZ ds fo:) foijhr mi/kkj.kk yh tkuh pkfg, vkSj

vius mDr rdZ ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar vkj-,e-;sYyV~h cuke vfl- ,DthD;wfVo bathfu;j&vihy ¼flfoy½ la[;k 5124@2004&fu.kZ; fn-

07@11@2005] jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWfQlj&2017¼2½ McY;w,ylh ¼jkt-½ 637 rFkk xkSjh'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt-&,l-lh- flfoy

vihy la[;k 3701@2015&fu.kZ; fn-16 vizSy] 2015 dk voyEc fy;k gS] eSaus izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk llEeku voyksdu dj ekxZ n'kZu

izkIr fd;k] muesa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls eSa iw.kZ:is.k lger gwW ysfdu gLrxr izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;kW fHkUu gksus ls izkFkhZ;k muesa

izfrikfnr fl)karksa dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gS gLrxr izdj.k esa Lo;a vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls galjkt eh.kk] lgk;d egkizcU/kd

dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gqvk gS ftlesa mldk ;gh dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k i{k }kjk lqlaxr vof/k ds ekaxs x;s vf/kdre nLrkost fcy o okmplZ

vkfn is'k dj fn;s x;s gSa] blls vf/kd fjdkWMZ foHkkx ds ikl miyC/k ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ;k }kjk Hkh dksbZ ,slh fo'ouh; lk{; vius dFkuksa ds

leFkZu esa izLrqr ugha dh gS ftlls izFke n`"V;k mlds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZR; rF;ksa dh iqf"V gksrh gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ;k i{k dh

vksj ls fn;k x;k rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

09&fu"d"kZr% mijksDr foospu o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ;k viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgh gS fd mlus vizkFkhZx.k

fu;kstd ds ;gkW lsok lekfIr frfFk 01@03@2007 ls Bhd iwoZ ds ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ] vFkkZr 12 dyS.Mj ekg esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS]

cfYd ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gkW tks Hkh dk;Z fd;k og fujUrj izd`fr dk uk gksdj ek= ikuh Hkjus o lQkbZ djus

dk gh va'kdkyhu :i esa jgk gS rFkk oks dk;Z Hkh Bsdk@lsok iznkrk ds :i esa gh jgk gS ftldk mls le;≤ ij Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk jgk

gSA vr% izkFkhZ;k Jfed vf/kfu;ekUrxZr dksbZ laj{k.k izkIr ugha gksus ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh

vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gS vkSj ;g funsZ'k@jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA

ifj.kker% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk viuh izklkafxd vkns'k fn-23@05@2008 ds tfj;s

lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd pwWfd izkFkhZ;k Jfed ekaxh ckbZ ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgh gS fd mlus

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gkW lsok lekfIr fnukad 01@03@2007 ls Bhd iwoZ ds ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ] vFkkZr 12 dyS.Mj ekg esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z

fd;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ;k] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkfj.kh ugha gSA

egs'k iqusBk] U;k;k/kh'k

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 29@06@2022 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr

ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA

4444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (60/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/06/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2023

S.O. 1906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 60/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/06/2012- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 60/2013

1. The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative Office,

Post Box No.50,

Gandhidham (Kutch),

Gujarat Pin-370201.

….…….First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586/12-C,

Gandhidham(Kutch) Pin-370201.

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/06/2012–IR(B-II) dated 08.03.2013 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 management of Kandla Port Trust in not filling the vacant posts in base line for more

than one year inspite of the vacancies are existing is justified? What relief the union is entitled for?”

1. The matter is fixed for 10.10.2023 for SP/workman’s evidence. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld.

Advocates are present for the First Party/employer and Shri N. H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second

Party/workman’s union. Ld. Counsel for the SP/workmen has filed an application Ex.7 to take up the matter

today on board and has drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards union’s withdrawal pursis M-8/1 dtd.

17.08.2023 and withdrawal application Ex.8 praying to dispose the matter today itself. First Party/employer

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4445

has not opposed. In the interest of justice and to expedite the disposal, the expedite application Ex.7 is

allowed. Let the matter be put up today for disposal.

2. Heard on withdrawal application Ex.8 r/w M-8/1. The union is permitted to withdraw its claim. The

reference stands decided as withdrawn accordingly.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (131/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/07/2013- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2023

S.O. 1907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.131/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/07/2013- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 131/2013

2. The Secretary, Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative Office,

Post Box No.50,

Gandhidham(Kutch),

Gujarat-370201.

….…….First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586/12-C,

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

4446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/07/2013–IR(B-II) dated 12.07.2013 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 Kandla Port Trust in not filling the posts of Accounts Officer,

Accountant, Head Clerk, Labour inspectors by way of promotion as per recruitment rules in CHD Division

under Traffic department is justified and whether the employees on these posts are eligible to the financial

benefits from the date relevant posts have actually fallen vacant? What relief they are entitled to?”

The matter is fixed for 28.11.2023 for SP/workman’s evidence. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld.

Advocates are present for the First Party/employer and Shri N. H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second

Party/workman’s union. Ld. Counsel for the SP/workman has filed an application Ex.7 to take up the matter today on

board and has drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards union’s withdrawal pursis M-8/1 dtd. 17.08.2023 and

withdrawal application Ex.8 praying to dispose the matter today itself. First Party/employer has not opposed. In the

interest of justice and to expedite the disposal, the expedite application Ex.7 is allowed. Let the matter be put up today

for disposal.

Heard on withdrawal application Ex.8 r/w M-8/1. The union is permitted to withdraw its claim. The

reference stands decided as withdrawn accordingly.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (44/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/26/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2023

S.O. 1908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/26/2012- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 44/2013

3. The Secretary, Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative Office,

Post Box No.50,

Gandhidham(Kutch),

Gujarat-370201.

….…….First Party

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4447

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586/12-C,

Gandhidham(Kutch) Pin-370201.

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/26/2012–

IR(B-II) dated 05.03.2013 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 KPT management in not regularising the services of Shri Makla Dayalal D/R Khalasi even

though he has completed 240 days in many years since February, 1972 is justified? What relief the applicant is

entitled to?”

1. The matter is fixed for 07.11.2023 for SP/workman’s evidence. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld.

Advocates are present for the First Party/employer and Shri N. H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second

Party/workman’s union. Ld. Counsel for the SP/workman has filed an application Ex.7 to take up the matter

today on board and has drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards union’s withdrawal pursis M-8/1 dtd.

17.08.2023 and withdrawal application Ex.8 praying to dispose the matter today itself. First Party/employer

has not opposed. In the interest of justice and to expedite the disposal, the expedite application Ex.7 is

allowed. Let the matter be put up today for disposal.

2. Heard on withdrawal application Ex.8 r/w M-8/1. The union is permitted to withdraw its claim. The

reference stands decided as withdrawn accordingly.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (64/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/17/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2023

S.O. 1909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 64/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/17/2012- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

4448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No- 64/2013

4. The Secretary, Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative Officer,

Post Box No.50,

Gandhidham(Kutch), Gujarat-370201.

Adipur(Kutch)

….…….First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586/12-C,

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201,

Adipur(Kutch).

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/17/2012–IR(B-II) dated 05.03.2013 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 KPT management in not regularising the services of Sh. Hussain Abdulla,

D/R Khalasi even though he has completed 240 days in many years since the year 1978 is justified? What

relief the applicant is entitled to?”

The matter is fixed for 16.10.2023 for SP/workman’s evidence. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld.

Advocates are present for the First Party/employer and Shri N. H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second

Party/workman’s union. Ld. Counsel for the SP/workman has filed an application Ex.7 to take up the matter today on

board and has drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards union’s withdrawal pursis M-8/1 dtd. 17.08.2023 and

withdrawal application Ex.8 praying to dispose the matter today itself. First Party/employer has not opposed. In the

interest of justice and to expedite the disposal, the expedite application Ex.7 is allowed. Let the matter be put up today

for disposal.

Heard on withdrawal application Ex.8 r/w M-8/1. The union is permitted to withdraw its claim. The

reference stands decided as withdrawn accordingly.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (56/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/01/2017- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2023

S.O. 1910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/01/2017- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4449

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 56/2017

1. The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust,

P.B.No.50,

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201.

2. The Secretary, Kandla Port Trust,

P.B.No.50,

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201.

….…….First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586(583 with correction),

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201,

Adipur(Kutch).

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/01/2017–IR(B-II) dated 19.06.2017 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 management of Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham by not paying piece rate incentive to

Cargo Handling Workers as per approved scheme and illegal reduction made by the management of Kandla

Port Trust is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled for?”

1. Today matter is called out. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld. Advocates are present for the First

Party/employer and Shri N. H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second Party/workman’s union The Second

Party workman has filed withdrawal pursis vide Ex.-7 along with union’s letter dated 17.08.2023 vide M-7/1,

wherein it is prayed that the SP / workmen’s union wants to withdraw the case. Withdrawal is not opposed

by First Party. The Second party is permitted to withdraw the reference as prayed for.

2. Thus the reference stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

4450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (53/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/11/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2023

S.O. 1911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 53/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/11/2012- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 53/2013

1. The Secretary, Kandla Port Trust,

Administrative Officer,

Post Box No.50,

Gandhidham(Kutch) Gujarat-370201.

….…….First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586/12-C,

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/11/2012–IR(B-II) dated 27.02.2013 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 Kandla Port Trust in not regularising the service of

Smt. Manjuben Kishan even though she has completed 240 days in many years since the year 1998 is legal

& justified? What relief the applicant is entitled to?”

1. The matter is fixed for 21.11.2023 for arguments. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld. Advocates are

present for the First Party/employer and Shri N.H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second

Party/workman’s union. Ld. Counsel for the SP/workman has filed an application Ex.9 to take up the matter

today on board and has drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards union’s withdrawal pursis M-10/1

dtd. 17.08.2023 and withdrawal application Ex.10 praying to dispose the matter today itself. First

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4451

Party/employer has not opposed. In the interest of justice and to expedite the disposal, the expedite

application Ex.9 is allowed. Let the matter be put up today for disposal.

2. Heard on withdrawal application Ex.10 r/w M-10/1. The union is permitted to withdraw its claim. The

reference stands decided as withdrawn accordingly.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2023

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

कांडला पोटट रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (59/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-37011/10/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी] उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2023

S.O. 1912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 59/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and

their workmen.

[No. L-37011/10/2012- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 21^th August, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 59/2013

The Secretary,

Kandla Port Trust, Administrative Office,

Post Box No.50, Gandhidham(Kutch),

Gujarat-370201.

….…….First Party

The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

21, Yogesh Building,

Plot No.586/12-C,

Gandhidham(Kutch)-370201.

..….….Second Party

Adv. for the First Party : Shri K. V. Ghadia & Shri M. K. Patel

Adv. for the Second Party : Shri N. H. Rathod

4452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-37011/10/2012–IR(B-II) dated 08.03.2013 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 KPT management in not granting the promotion to S/Shri Datta Ram, Auto-cum-

Diesel Mechanic and Ramesh Khatri, Light House Mechanic to the post of Chargeman (Mechanical) w.e.f.

their eligibility is justified? What relief these two workmen are entitled to?”

1. Today matter is called out. Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel Ld. Advocates are present for the First

Party/employer and Shri N. H. Rathod, Advocate is representing Second Party/workmen’s union. The

Second Party workmen has filed withdrawal pursis vide Ex.-7 along with union’s letter dated 17.08.2023

vide M-7/1, wherein it is prayed that the SP / workmen’s union wants to withdraw the case. Withdrawal is

not opposed by First Party. The Second party is permitted to withdraw the reference as prayed for.

2. Thus the reference stands disposed of as withdrawn.

Let two copies of Award be sent to the appropriate Government for the needful and for publication.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 1913.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

उप. उच्चा ुक्त, डेमोक्रेटटक सोिजलस्ट्ट टरपजललक ऑफ़ श्रीलंका, िजक्षणी भारत, चेन्नई, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और

श्रीमती टी. सेंज ल कुमारी,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िटष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक न् ा ाजिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल

-चेन्नई पंचाट(संिभट सं्‍ ा 127/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के सा 01.01.2024को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-01-आईआर(डी ू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st January, 2024

S.O. 1913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The

Dy. High Commissioner, Democratic Socialist Republic of Shri Lanka ,Southern India, Chennai, and Smt. T. Senthil

Kumari,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.01.2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-01-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

ID No. 127/2019

Present:

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 21.10.2022

Smt. T. Senthil Kumari

W/o A. Ramesh D. Velayutham

No. 30-B, EB Colony

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4453

Krishnapuram

Veppampattu-87

Thiruvallur District-602024

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Dy. High Commissioner for the Democratic

Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Southern India

No. 56, Sterling Road

Chennai-600034

2^nd Party Respondent

Appearance:

For the First Party Petitioner

Advocate, Sri K.M. Ramesh

For the Second Party Respondent

None

AWARD

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The brief facts of the Petitioner‘s case is that pursuant to the order dtd. 01.03.2008 of the Respondent, the

Petitioner joined the Respondent in the post of Clerk/Typist on a fixed salary. After three months, the

Applicant/Petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 04.07.2008 vide Respondent’s Order dtd.

04.06.2008. She was again appointed to the post of Consular Assistant by Respondent’s order dtd. 26.09.2008 on the

same fixed salary. Thereafter, vide Order dtd. 17.09.2012, she was absorbed in the post to the cadre in Ministry of

Foreign Affairs w.e.f 01.01.2013 for a period of three years. She was working continuously and provided with annual

increment, etc. Her service was extended for further period of two spells vide the Respondent’s letter dtd. 16.12.2016

and 19.12.2017. While she was still continuing in service, the Respondent issued a letter dtd. 21.12.2018 showing the

completion of the job contract being enclosed with a cheque of the salary for the month of December. 2018. The

Petitioner was working continuously without any break whatsoever. The Petitioner challenges the Order of

Termination dtd. 21.12.2018 as illegal, unjustified. The specific relief sought for by the Petitioner is for a direction to

the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

The Respondent did not enter appearance despite of due Notice and set ex-parte. In view of the case of the

Applicant, the following issues are settled:

(i)

If the issuance of the communication of the Respondent order dtd. 21.12.2018 in favour of the Petitioner can

be construed as a Termination Order.

(ii)

If such communication dtd. 21.12.2018 is illegal, unjustified and contrary to the principles of natural justice?

(iii)

To what relief the Applicant / Petitioner is entitled?

Issues (i) and (ii)

Since the issues (i) and (ii) are inter-linked inter-alia are taken up together for common discussion. The

Petitioner adduced evidence in chief in support of the averments in the Claim Petition. Ten documents marked as

Ext.W1 to Ext. W10 are relied on.

In support of the contentions of the 2A Application, the Petitioner adduces evidence that she joined the

Respondent as Clerk-cum-Typist with a fixed salary of Rs. 10,150/- per month. This portion of her evidence is

supported with the Appointment Order marked as Ext.W1. She was terminated w.e.f. 01.03.2008 vide Order dtd.

04.06.2008 (Ext.W2). Ext.W3 is the letter from the Respondent that she has been appointed as Consular Assistant

vide letter dtd. 26.09.2008 in the same scale of pay.

The Petitioner produced Ext.W4, the communication made by the Deputy High Commissioner of the

Respondent in favour of the Petitioner that the Ministry of External Affairs has decided to absorb her in the post to the

cadre of Ministry of External Affairs in this Mission on locally recruited basis w.e.f. 01.01.2013 for a period of 3

years and her pay was fixed in the scale of Rs 5200-20,200 + Rs. 2,400/- Grade Pay and Allowances. It is further

contended by the Petitioner that while she was continuing as such, her job was extended for a period of one year

w.e.f. 01.01.2016 (Ext.W5). Similar extensions of her job for two more years was made by the Respondent vide

Ext.W6 and Ext.W7. Ext.W8 is a Certificate of Experience issued by the then Deputy High Commissioner in favour

of the Petitioner that she worked as Consular Assistant from 01.03.2008 to 31.12.2018. Ext.W9 is a Salary Cheque for

the month of December, 2018.

4454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

While so, the Respondent without prior notice issued a letter dtd. 21.12.2018 directing the Petitioner to

handover the official ID Card and records on the ground that the contract has reached its finality on 31.12.2018. A

cheque for Rs. 40,014.50 was handed over towards her earned salary for the month of December, 2018.

On perusal of the documents under Ext.W1 and Ext.W2, it is understood that the Petitioner was initially

appointed to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist vide Ext.W1 with a salary of Rs. 10,150/- per month. She was terminated

vide Ext.W2 on 04.07.2008. The Sub-Clause 2 and 3 of Ext.W1 specifically denotes the terms and conditions of the

job that the Petitioner’s appointment was purely Temporary and such appointment no way confers any right to claim a

permanent post in the Mission. Ext.W2 reveals that the Petitioner was terminated from her job since a new Officer

was posted as against the vacancy where the Petitioner was temporarily posted. Similarly, Ext.W3 reveals that the

Petitioner was appointed as Consular Assistant on Temporary Basis in the Deputy High Commission of Sri Lanka,

Chennai w.e.f. 26.09.2008. The clauses with regard to the terms therein categorically states that her such appointment

does not confer any right to claim a Permanent Post in the organization. Clause-5 reflects that appointment was liable

to be terminated without notice. In Clause-6 the Petitioner was requested to acknowledge the receipt of the letter i.e.

Ext.W3 and to state if she accepts the post as per Terms and Conditions. Ext.W4 reveals that the Ministry of External

Affairs absorbs the Petitioner’s Post to the cadre of MEA in the Mission on locally recruited basis w.e.f. 01.01.2013

for a period of 3 years. Clause-2 of the Appointment Letter (Ext.W4) says that the appointment of the Petitioner was

temporary and non-pensionable. The Petitioner cannot claim any permanent employment under the Government of

Sri Lanka or any Gratuity thereof. In the Clause-6 it was mentioned that the termination of such appointment will be

subject to notice of one calendar month or one month salary in lieu of such notice. However, as per the Terms and

Conditions of the temporary posting of the Petitioner for 3 years i.e. 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2015, the Petitioner’s service

was extended for one year w.e.f. 01.01.2016 vide Ext.W5. The Terms and Conditions as per Ext.W4 shall remain

unchanged for the appointment of the Petitioner under Ext.W5. Thereafter, the service of the Petitioner was again

extended for another one year w.e.f. 01.01.2018. The same conditions under Ext.W4 remained unchanged. Thereafter,

the Petitioner was issued with the letter dtd. 21.12.2018 from Dy. High Commissioner wherein it was intimated to

her that her contract of employment was to be completed on 31.12.2018.The admitted undisputed fact remains that on

the same day, a cheque bearing No. 7580001693 for Rs. 40,014.50 was handed over to the Petitioner towards the

salary for the month of December.

As such, on meticulous perusal of all the documents under Exhibits and in view of the discussion held in

preceding paragraphs, it undoubtedly makes it clear that the Petitioner accepted the offer of job in full conscience of

the terms and conditions of each of the Appointment Letter. Even during every extension of her appointment vide

Ext.W5 and Ext.W6, it was abundantly made clear that the Terms and Conditions as per Ext.W4 shall remain

unchanged. It also reveals that the Petitioner was fully aware of this fact and accepted the extensions. It was also

made clear to her that the Petitioner at no point of time can claim permanency against her temporary posting. It was

also made clear by the Respondent that she can be terminated from service with one month salary in lieu of prior

notice. After completion of the contract period alongwith the extension period, she was noticed regarding completion

of the contract period and issued with a cheque of one month pay. The Issues (i) and (ii) are answered.

Issue No. (iii)

10.

The issuance of the letter vide Ext.W7 dtd. 21.12.2018 was in strict adherence to the Terms and Conditions

of Ext.W4. Accordingly, Ext.W7 cannot be treated as a letter of termination as claimed by the Petitioner but a notice

of completion of contract. Thus, the Respondent is found not to have defeated the principles of natural justice by

issuance of Ext.W7. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for. In the premises, the contentions of letter

dtd. 21.12.2018 (Ext.W7) needs no interference. Accordingly, the 2A Application, being devoid of any merit is not

maintainable.

The ID 127/2019 stands dismissed.

An Award is passed accordingly.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner Union

WW1, Smt. T. Senthilkumari

For the 2^nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No. Date

Description

Ext.W1 01.03.2008

Xerox copy of appointment order for the post of

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4455

Clerk/Typist issued to the Petitioner

Ext.W2 04.06.2008

Xerox copy of termination issued to the

Petitioner

Ext.W3 26.09.2008

Xerox copy of Appointment Letter to Consular

Assistant (Temporary) issued by the

Respondent.

Ext.W4 17.09.2012

Xerox copy of letter for absorption of the post to

the cadre of MEA of the Mission

Ext.W5 29.10.2015

Xerox copy of the Extension Letter

Ext.W6 19.12.2017

Xerox copy of the Extension Letter

Ext.W7 21.12.2018

Xerox copy of Certificate of Experience issued by

the Respondent Office

Ext.W8 31.12.2018

Xerox copy of Certificate of Experience issued by

the Respondent Office

Ext.W9 -

Xerox copy of Identity Card issued by the

Respondent Office

Ext.W10 31.12.2018 Cheque bearing no. 198578 for Rs. 40,014.50

On the Management’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_______________Nil___________________________

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tuojh] 2024

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

एचडीएफसी स्ट्टैंडडट लाइफ इंश् ोरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; I-दिल्ली ds iapkV (103/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12012/40/2017- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2024

S.O. 1914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 103/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of HDFC Standard Life

Insurance Company Ltd. and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/40/2017- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

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

4456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID No.103/2018

M/s Anjali Juneja,

R/o T-66, Vishnu Garden near Sunil Dairy (Khayala),

New Delhi-110018

Claimant…

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its MD & CEO, Lodha Excelus,

13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound N.M. Joshi Marg,

Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400011

Management…

None for the claimant

Shri Joy Dip Bhatacharya, AR for the management

AWARD

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

No. L-12012/40/2017-IR(B-I) dated 24.01.2018 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 action of the management HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. in terminating the services of

M/s Anjali Juneja vide order dated 02.11.2015 is illegal and or justifiably? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

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. Claim statement with documents filed on December 05, 2018 and on the next date written statement on

behalf of the management filed.

After received the written statement the case list for filing of rejoinder for May 08, 2019, the claimant not

appear nor his AR present. On 13.08.2019, 08.11.2019, 15.12. 2021, 09.03.2022, 30.05.2022, 21.11.2022, 15.02.2023

and 17.03.2023, the claimant not present nor his AR. Despite directions so given, claimant opted not to file the

rejoinder. 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

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2024

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

एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरी ानी ds iapkV (

/

) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2023-आईआर(lh एम-II)

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2024

S.O. 1915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4457

Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/12/2023.

[ No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr. T. SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023.

I.D. No. 03 of 2016

Between:-

Ballepu Rajam (E.C.No.2853166), S/o. Abbaiah, Age:50 Years; Occ: Ex-Coal Filler, C/o. Sri G.Komuraiah,

Advocate, R/o. H. No.1-97, Padmanagar, Karimnagar - 505001.

… Petitioner/Workman.

AND

The General Manager, S.C.C. Ltd, SRP Area, Srirampur of

Adilabad District.

The Managing Director (Adm), S.C.C.Ltd, Kothagudem of

Khammam District.

...Respondents/Management.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Komuraiah, Advocate for the

Petitioner/Workman and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents/Management; and having been

heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act praying to set aside the dismissal order, dt.27.12.2004 passed

by the Respondent No.1 and to direct the Respondents’ Company to reinstate the petitioner/workman into service

with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits and full back wages.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

2(a).

That the Petitioner/Workman i.e., Ballepu Rajam was appointed as Coal Filler in the year, 1989 and attached

to work at Chennur I & I-A Incline under the control of the Colliery Manager, S.C.C. Ltd, SRP Area, Srirampur of

Adilabad District. The petitioner maintained good attendance from 1989 to 2002 without any remark from his

superiors. But in the year 2003, his miseries rounded him at once as his father expired suddenly and this incident took

some time to recover from the shock. Though he was in grief he applied leave from 01.01.2003 to 20.01.2003, which

shows his care and respect for duty. After the death of his father the petitioner's brothers raised dispute for partition

of ancestral property i.e., House and Agriculture land, this dispute prolonged for long time and the petitioner’s

presence was imminent before the panchayath. Due to this problem, the petitioner has to spend most of his time at his

native place. This lead to dragging the petitioner and his family members on to the road and shifting his family to his

native place from Chennur. As the disputes are yet is be concluded, the petitioner's eldest daughter marriage was

fixed, for meeting the marriage expenses he was compelled borrow money from others.

2(b). Further, it is to submit that the petitioner performed his daughter’s marriage by facing much difficulty; and

under these unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was remained to absent duties by informing his authorities

verbally. Further, on 29.11.2003 when the petitioner was in duty he met with an accident in the mine and his left leg

was injured badly. The respondent No.1 without enquiring into the facts issued charge sheet on 26.03.2004 by

framing the charges under company's standing orders 25:25 habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and

25:31 absence from duty without sanctioned leave. It is pertinent to mention that the management shown month wise

absences of the petitioner in the charge sheet. Against the month of January, 2003 number of absents shown as (31)

days but whereas the petitioner applied medical leave from 01.01.2003 to 20.01.2003. Further, in the month of

December, 2003, from 22.12.2003 to 31.12.2003 was indicated as absent. But the petitioner was sanctioned medical

leave from 22.12.2003 to 07.02.2004. This shows the negligent attitude of the management towards the

petitioner/workman.

2(c). It is to submit that the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet by explaining the above reasons but the

management was not satisfied with his explanation and enquiry notice was served on him. The petitioner attended the

4458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enquiry and again explained the facts for his reasons of absence during the year, 2003. The enquiry was conducted in

partisan manner without considering the facts stated by the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural

justice. But the management could not consider his request and dismissed his services w.e.f., 01.01.2005 vide Proc.

No. SRP/PER/13.008/7051, dt.27.12.2004. The Company adopted unfair labor practice and vindictive attitude

towards the petitioner and terminated him from service by adopting victimization. After a lapse of (07) years from his

termination, the petitioner was called for interview on 26.04.2012 at Corporate Office at Kothagudem under the

scheme for reviewing the cases of ex-employees dismissed on the ground of absenteeism for their re-appointment.

Accordingly the petitioner attended the interview with fond hope to get the job. Though (03) years elapsed, But the

result of which is still awaited. That the quantum of punishment imposed or the petitioner was shockingly is

proportionate and harsh to the gravity of misconduct of the petitioner.

2(d). It is to submit that the petitioner/workman has still (08) year's service left and he served a demand notice

dt.29.10.2015 on the respondent No.1 to reconsider his termination order and for reinstatement into service with

continuity of service and all attendant benefits with back wages. The respondent No.1 having acknowledged the

notice and kept silent on the notice till to-date despite laps of (15) days stipulated time. This Court was vested with

wide powers U/Sec.11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 to quash the termination order and disproportionate punishment and

grant every relief to the poor workman. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order dt.27.12.2004 and pass

the orders for his reinstatement into service with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits and

full back wages.

On the other side, the Respondents/Management submitted their counter by admitting the employment of

the Petitioner/ Workman inter-alia contended that the Respondent No.1 denies all the material averments of the

Petition, except those which are specifically admitted herein. At the outset it is to submit that the present dispute is

barred by limitation in accordance to Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010 (from 15.09.2010),

which is extracted hereunder:-

(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an

individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or

arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, any such workman as is specified in Sub-Section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of three months from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer

of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute and in respect of such application the Labour

Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it was a dispute

referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the

provisions of this Act shall apply in as relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial

dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of (03) three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in Sub-section (1)."

3(a). It is to submit that admittedly the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the respondent No.1 Company

with effect from 01.01.2005. The petitioner having kept quiet for all these years, now after laps of a (11) years, raised

the dispute of dismissal, which is barred by limitation U/Sec.2A (3) of the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010.

Therefore, for the said reason the proceedings are liable to be dismissed in limine. It is to further submit that the

limitation of the proceedings may be decided as a preliminary issue before going in to enquiry proceedings.

3(b). Without prejudice to its rights in respect of the preliminary objection raised above, it is to submit that the

petitioner was appointed into the services of the RespondentNo.1 Company as Badli Filler on 10.01.1989 and the

petitioner was never regular in attending his duties. The services of the employees of the Respondent No.1 Company

are entirely governed by the approved company's standing orders. According to Section 52(2) of the Mines Act-1952,

an underground employee is required to put in minimum musters of (190) and surface employees (240) musters. The

petitioner being an underground employee, he is expected to put in minimum of (190) musters in a calendar year, but

he being a chronic absentee had put in only (83) musters in the year, 2003. The petitioner is a chronic absentee and

the following attendance particulars indicate that the petitioner was not regular to his duties.

Sl.No.

Year

No. of Musters

1999

209

2000

175

2001

174

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4459

2002

142

2003

3(c). During the period from January 2003 to December 2003, the petitioner had put in only (83) musters. As the

above act amounts to misconduct under clause No.25.25 and 25.31 of company's approved standing orders, he was

charge sheeted vide charge sheet dt.26.03.2004, and the relevant standing order reads as under:-

"Clause 25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absents from duty without sufficient cause" "Clause

25.31: Absents from duty without sanction leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave."

3(d). It is to submit that the as per the service rules of the Company the workman has to work for at least one day in a

new year to get eligibility for availing new leaves. The petitioner applied leave from 01.01.2003 to 20.01.2003

without working for a single day in the New Year. Hence, he was not entitled for availing leave. Further, it is to

submit that he had met with a minor accident in the mine on 29.11.2003 and he was treated as an out-patient in the

Company Hospital. The petitioner was a chronic absentee and he had put in less than (100) actual musters during the

year, 2003. Hence, he was issued with a Charge Sheet dt.26.03.2004 under clause No.25.25 and 25.31 of approved

company's standing orders. Since, the petitioner brought an out-station medical certificate for the period from

22.12.2003 to 07.02.2004, as per company rules he was directed to company Hospital to find out his fitness and for

allowing him to duty, but, it-was not treated as sanctioned leave on loss of pay. The enquiry into the above charge

sheet was conducted in a free and fair manner giving full opportunity to the petitioner to participate and to defend his

case.

3(e). It is to submit that during the enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and show-cause

notice was also issued to the petitioner enclosing thereto the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report. But, the

petitioner did not submit any representation to the said show-cause notice. As such, he was dismissed from company's

service w.e.f., 01.01.2005 vide Proc. No. SRP/PER/13-008/7051, dt.27.12.2004. The averment made by the petitioner

that the Company adopted unfair labor practice and vindictive attitude towards the petitioner and terminated him from

service by adopting victimization is not true and correct; and hence, denied.

3(f). It is to submit that in accordance with the memorandum of settlement dt.09.08.2011 and circular dt.02.09.2011, a

High Power Committee was constituted to review the dismissal cases on account of absenteeism during the period

from 01.01.2002 to 31.01.2010. The criteria for reappointment as a fresh Badli Filler is as follows:

i). The dismissed employee should have put in (100) musters in any (02) years out of previous (05) years

prior to dismissal.

ii). The dismissed employee should be below (42) years as on 09.08.2011.

3(g).

In the instant case the petitioner was dismissed with effect from 01.01.2005 but was not considered for

reappointment as the age of the petitioner was (47) years and (08) months as on 09.08.2011 as his date of birth is

17.11.1963 as per records. As such, the petitioner's case was not considered by the High Power Committee. Further,

the averment made by the petitioner at para-6 of the petition that the quantum of punishment was shockingly

disproportionate and harsh against the gravity of misconduct is not true and correct and hence, denied. The other

allegations which are not specifically admitted herein are hereby denied. Therefore, the respondents prayed to

dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner with costs.

In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-7 and on the other side

for the Respondents/Management Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-2 were marked.

Heard, the learned counsel for Petitioner/Workman as well as learned counsel for the Respondents/

Management, besides written arguments.

Now the points for consideration are:

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents is valid or not?

Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved beyond any reasonable doubt or

not?

Whether the dismissal order, dt.27.12.2004 is liable to be set aside, if so, whether the petitioner is

entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back

wages?

If not to what relief is the worker entitled to?”

From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’-Corporation, these are the admitted facts

that the Petitioner and he worked as Coal Filler in the Respondents’-Company. Ex.M-1 is Name removal letter.

Ex.M-2 is dismissed order. Further, the petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-7, on his behalf; wherein, Ex.W-1 is

4460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dismissal order issued by the project Officer, IK & CH Mines. Ex.W-2 is copy of demand notice along with postal

receipt. Ex.W-3 is No.IK.1/R/IR/007/2003/1271 memo calling explanation for being absented to duty. Ex.W-4 is

charge sheet No.IK.1/R/IR/ 008/2003/1909 calling explanation for being absented to duty. Ex.W-5 is charge sheet

No.CH.1/2003/R/08/1973 calling explanation for being absented to duty. Ex.W-6 is enquiry notice

No.CH.1/2003/R.10/650 to attend before enquiry officer on the charges laid vide CS.No.CH.1/2004/R.10/1354,

dt.05.07.2004. Ex.W-7 is charge sheet No.IK.1/R/IR/008/2004/1616 calling explanation for being absent to duty.

Here, the learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously argued that the petitioner was appointed into

the services of the RespondentNo.1 Company as Badli Filler on 10.01.1989 and the petitioner was never regular in

attending his duties. The petitioner being an underground employee, he is expected to put in minimum of (190)

musters in a calendar year, but he being a chronic absentee had put in only (83) musters in the year, 2003. As the

above act amounts to misconduct under clause No.25.25 and 25.31 of company's approved standing orders, he was

charge sheeted vide charge sheet dt.26.03.2004. Further as per the service rules of the Company, a workman has to

work for at least one day in a new year to get eligibility for availing new leaves. The petitioner applied leave from

01.01.2003 to 20.01.2003 without working for a single day in the New Year. Hence, he was not entitled for availing

leave. Since, the petitioner brought an out-station medical certificate for the period from 22.12.2003 to 07.02.2004, as

per company rules he was directed to company Hospital to find out his fitness and for allowing him to duty, but, it-

was not treated as sanctioned leave on loss of pay. The enquiry into the above charge sheet was conducted in a free

and fair manner giving full opportunity to the petitioner to participate and to defend his case.

8(a). The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that during the enquiry all the charges were proved

against the petitioner and show-cause notice was also issued to him by enclosing copies of enquiry proceedings and

enquiry report. But, the petitioner did not submit any representation to the said show-cause notice. As such, he was

dismissed from company's service w.e.f., 01.01.2005 vide Proc. No. SRP/PER/13-008/7051, dt.27.12.2004. Further,

in accordance with the memorandum of settlement dt.09.08.2011 and circular dt.02.09.2011, a High Power

Committee was constituted to review the dismissal cases on account of absenteeism during the period from

01.01.2002 to 31.01.2010. But as the petitioner was (47) years and (08) months as on cut-off date of 09.08.2011, he

was not considered by the High Power Committee. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the

respondents is quite proportionate, proper and justified. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition, without granting any

relief to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Workman vehemently argued that the petitioner was

appointed as Coal Filler in the year 1989 and he maintained good attendance from 1989 to 2002 without any remark

from his superiors. But in the year 2003, his miseries rounded him at once as his father expired suddenly and this

incident took some time to recover from the shock. After the death of his father, the petitioner's brothers raised

dispute for partition of ancestral property and this dispute prolonged for long time before the panchayath. Due to this

problem, the petitioner has to spend most of his time at his native place. Further, the petitioner's eldest daughter

marriage was fixed and for meeting the marriage expenses he was compelled borrow money from others. He

performed his daughter’s marriage by facing much difficulty and the petitioner was remained to absent duties by

informing his authorities verbally. On 29.11.2003, when the petitioner was in duty he met with an accident in the

mine and his left leg was injured badly. But, respondent No.1 without enquiring into the facts issued charge sheet on

26.03.2004 by framing the charges under company's standing orders 25:25 habitual absence from duty without

sufficient cause and 25:31 absence from duty without sanctioned leave. The petitioner submitted his reply to the

charge sheet by explaining the above reasons but the management was not satisfied with his explanation and enquiry

notice was served on him. The petitioner attended the enquiry and again explained the reasons of absence during the

year, 2003. But the respondents not considered his request and dismissed him from service w.e.f., 01.01.2005 vide

Proc. No. SRP/PER/13.008/7051, dt.27.12.2004.

9(a).

The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman further argued that after a lapse of (07) years, the petitioner

was called for interview on 26.04.2012 at Corporate Office at Kothagudem under the scheme for reviewing his case

for re-appointment. The petitioner attended the interview with fond hope to get the job. Though (03) years elapsed,

the result of which was still awaited. Hence, the extremely harsh punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly

disproportionate and not commensurate. The petitioner hails from a very poor family and has no other source of

livelihood to feed his family members and this Court has got wide powers U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act to set-aside

dismissal order and to grant reinstatement into service with full back wages.

POINT No.1:

10.

In this matter, this Tribunal framed issues on 25.06.2018 and on 22.02.2021 this Tribunal passed an order

holding that the domestic enquiry is fair and valid. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the

facts of the case and the findings are not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its

own conclusion with regard to finding guilty or not based on evidence.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4461

POINT No. 2 & 3:

11.

In view of the above pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents/company and rival arguments of

their respective counsel, now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed

from service by the respondents with effect from 01.01.2004. Further, he himself got examined as WW-1 and also

got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-7. A perusal of chief examination of WW.1, it shows that the same is nothing but

replica of the petition contents. However, during cross examination of WW.1, he stated that he was absent due to his

ill-health and also stated that he did not file any record to show that he was suffering from ill-health. Whereas, on

behalf of the respondents, the Senior Personnel Officer of respondent company was examined as MW.1, during his

cross examination, he stated that if the workman were aged about 42 years as on 09.08.2011, he would have been

considered, but the petitioner was aged about 47 years and as such, he was not considered. Therefore, it is clear from

the above evidences of both sides that the petitioner has not attended the duties only due to his ill-health, but to prove

the same the petitioner has not filed any single medical document. Further, there is no dispute by either side that a

High Power Committee was constituted to review the dismissal cases on account of absenteeism cases during the

period from 01.01.2002 to 31.01.2010 with a criteria for re-appointment as a fresh Badli Filler with the conditions that

the dismissed employee should have put in 100 musters in any 2 years out of previous 5 years prior to dismissal and

the dismissed employee should be below 42 years as on 09.08.2011. But as per the evidence of MW.1, the petitioner

is having 47 years during the above said date and during the year 2003, the respondents contended that he put in only

83 musters, hence, his case was not considered by the High Power Committee. However, a perusal of the record, it is

clear that the petitioner was dismissed with effect from 01.01.2005 but was not considered and for re-appointment as

the age of the petitioner was 47 years and 8 months as on 09.08.2011 as his date of birth is 17.11.1963 as per records.

Further, since the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents is held valid and also the petitioner failed to prove

that due to ill-health only, he did not able to attend the duties, the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved

basing on the record.

11.

Further, another contention raised by the respondents/ company is that after lapse of (9) years from the date

of punishment without proper causes for delay in terms of Limitation Act, this I.D., was filed, hence it is not

maintainable. On the other side, the contention of the petitioner/workman is that he was appointed as Badli Filler in

the year 1989, and rendered the services of (24) years and he hails from a very poor family and has got no other

livelihood and facing untold financial problems, hence prayed to consider the case under section 11-A of I.D., Act.

12.

Here, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has relied on a Division Bench Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2157/1999, dt.08.04.1999 between Ajaib singh vs. Sirhind Co-op.

Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., & another, wherein their lordships held that:-

“Article 137 of schedule of Limitation Act not applicable to the proceedings under I.D. Act. The object of

Industrial Disputes Act was to give succor to weaker sections of the society. The emergence of the concept of

Welfare State implies an end to exploitation of workman and as a corollary to that collective bargaining came

into it own. The Legislature had intended to protect workmen against victmisation and exploitation by the

employer and to ensure termination of Industrial Disputes in a peaceful manner.

The object of the Act, therefore, is to give succor to weaker sections of the society which is a pre-requisite for

Welfare State. To ensure industrial peace and pre-empt industrial tension, the Act further aims at enhancing

the industrial production which is acknowledged to be life-blood of a developing society. The Act provides a

machinery for investigation and settlement of industrial dispute ignoring the legal technicalities with a view to

avoid delays, by specially authorized Courts which are not supposed to deny the relief on account of the

procedural wrangles”.

13.

So there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for Respondents/company with regard to delay

in view of the above cited decision. Therefore, in view of the above decision and the facts and circumstances of the

case, if we come to quantum of sentence it is settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised under section

11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of

misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which

require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to

reduce the punishment. Therefore, in the present case on hand, it is evident from the record that the

petitioner/workman has put up 24 years of service in the company. Even, the petitioner failed to prove his case and

the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved, this Tribunal is of the opinion that there are mitigating

circumstances that since the petitioner rendered long service of (24) years, the punishment imposed by the

respondents/ company against the petitioner /workman is harsh, disproportionate and shocks to conscience of this

Tribunal, hence, deserves to be modified since the disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and

work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight between David and Goliath as in the present case on hand.

Moreover, the facts of this case attracts the proverbial saying “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”.

14.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and keeping in view of the principle “temper justice

with mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the

4462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Petitioner/Workman vide the Proceedings, dt.27.12.2004 under Ex.M-2 is disproportionate and shock to the

conscience of this Tribunal and there is no much gravity in the misconduct, hence, it deserves to be modified

appropriately. Here, this Tribunal relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court Bhavnagar District Panchayat

vs Dhanabhai Mohanbhai, dt.06.08.2021, wherein their lordship held that:

12. Now, in this case, as submitted by learned advocate for the workmen that almost all workmen have

retired and almost 30 years have passed, there is no question of now reinstating all the workmen. It also

appears from record that in all these petitions, by virtue of order dated 6.4.2010, the petitioner herein has

complied with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Considering the factual aspects

of the present case, since there was a short tenure of service of the workmen instead of granting continuity of

service and back wages, it will be appropriate to award compensation as full and final settlement in favour

of the workmen. Now, considering the peculiar facts of this case and the fact that there was short span of

service of the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion, if Rs.50,000/- is awarded as

C/SCA/1631/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2021 compensation as full and final settlement, it will serve

the ends of justice.

13. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tapash Paul Vs. BSNL and another reported

in 2016 (1) Scale 92 and BSNL Vs. Bhurumal reported in 2014 (7) SCC 177, this Court is of the view that in

the present cases granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and,

therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each respondent-

workman in lieu of reinstatement is passed, it will meet the ends of justice.

14. In view of above, all these petitions are partly allowed and the impugned common award dated

16.10.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Nos.99, 101, 114, 115, 116, 117 and

118 of 1992 is modified to the aforesaid extent that the petitioner herein shall pay Rs.50,000/- as full and

final compensation to each of the workman. Such amount be paid to each workman by the petitioner, after

proper verification of the identity by an account payee cheque/ pay order within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the concerned workman shall be entitled to get interest at

the rate of 6% from the date of this order till the date of actual realization. It is observed that the aforesaid

amount is in addition to whatsoever amount paid to him/her till today. Rule is made absolute accordingly

with no order as to costs. Registry is directed to maintain a copy of this order in all connected matters.

15.

Therefore, in view of the above decision and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case since

the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.11.1963 and the superannuation of the petitioner is 17.11.2023, this Tribunal is

of the considered opinion that granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner-workman in lieu of

reinstatement will meet the ends of justice since the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and the

petitioner/workman already attained the age of superannuation.

16.

In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The Respondent/ Management is directed to pay lumpsum

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner/workman. Consequently, the petitioner/workman is not entitled to any

continuity of service, back wages and any other attendant benefits. The Award shall come into force on expiry of (30)

days from the date of its publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30^th day of October,

2023.

Dr. T. SRINIVASA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN:-

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

-Nil-

E X H I B I T S

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

27.12.2004

Dismissal order issued by the project Officer, IK & CH Mines.

Ex.W-2

Dt.

29.10.2015

copy of demand notice along with postal receipt.

Ex.W-3

Dt.

05.06.2003

No.IK.1/R/IR/007/2003/1271 memo calling explanation for being

absented to duty.

Ex.W-4

Dt.

16/18.08.2003

Charge sheet No.IK.1/R/IR/008/ 2003/1909 calling explanation

for being absented to duty.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4463

Ex.W-5

Dt.

04.10.2004

Charge sheet No.CH.1/2003 /R/08 /1973 calling explanation for

being absented to duty.

Ex.W-6

Dt.

12.08.2004

Enquiry notice No.CH.1/2003/R.10/ 650 to attend before enquiry

officer on the charges laid vide S.No.CH.1/ 2004/R.10/1354,

dt.05.07.2004.

Ex.W-7

Dt.

26.03.2004

Charge sheet No.IK.1/R/IR/008/ 2004/1616 calling explanation

for being absent to duty.

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

02.02.2005

Name removal letter

Ex.M-2

Dt.

27.12.2004

Dismissed order

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2024

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

ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरी ानी ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2023-आईआर(lhएम-II)

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2024

S.O. 1916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/12/2023.

[No. L-22013/01/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 20^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

I.D.No. 46 of 2018

Between:-

Uppula

Nagaraju,

E.C.No.2378670,

Ex-Badli

Filler

(UG),

S/o.

Rajaiah,

Age:26

Years,

C/o. Sri B. Amarender Rao, Advocate, Raghupathi Rao Nagar, Ganganagar, Behind Bharat Petrol Bunk,

Godavarikhani, Mandal Ramagundam District: Peddapalli (T.S) - 505 209.

…Petitioner.

A N D

The Supdt. of Mines Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., RK-1A Incline, Mandamarri Area, P.O: Mandamarri,

District: Mancherial, (T.S).

The Chief General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, P.O: Mandamarri,

District: Mancherial, (T.S).

The Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., P.0: Kothagudem, District:

Khammam (T.S).

...Respondents.

4464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Amarendar Rao, Advocate for the

Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh and Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, Counsel for the Respondents; and having been

heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act-1947 by Sri Uppula Nagaraju/Petitioner,

E.C.No.2378670, Ex-Badli Filler (UG) praying to set aside the dismissal order Ref.No. MMR/PER/D/072/17/6079,

dt.26.10.2017 passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’-company to reinstate the him into service

with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits and full back wages.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

2(a).

It is to submit that the Petitioner/Workman was appointed in the Respondents’-Company during the year

2012 as Badili Filler in place of his deceased father Uppula Rajaiah, Ex.Coal Filler, EC.No.2335760 of KTK-2

Incline, who died while in service during in the year 2006. The petitioner’s name was kept on live roaster and after

attaining (18) years of age, he was provided dependant employment in place of late father, vide Office Order

dt.21.10.2011. After completing basic job training at MVTC, he was posted to work as Badli Filler (Under Ground),

vide Officer Order dt.21.05.2012, in the absentee vacancies of regular Coal Fillers.

2(b).

It is to submit that the petitioner is the only son, his father expired while in service and there is nobody to

look after his ailing mother. As his father worked in Bhupalpalli Area, the petitioner and his mother were residing at

Bhupalpalli. But, due to his posting to RK.1A Incline in Mandamarri Area, the petitioner was compelled to stay at

Mandamarri. But, the underground atmosphere and water did not suit him and his health condition was badly

deteriorated. Further, he sustained injuries while on duty in the underground due to felling of big Coal Stone on him.

He was given treatment in the Area Hospital Mandamarri, by keeping him ICU during the year 2014. On that

incident, the petitioner’s mother suffered apprehension, fear and “Phobia”. Further, the petitioner suffered from

chronic ill-health and he had to look after his ailing mother and as such, he could not attend to his duties during the

year 2015. But, the respondent No.1 issued charge sheet dt.27.07.2016 alleging the following charge:-

“25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over staying beyond sanctioned

leave”.

2(c).

It is to submit that purely due to ill-health of the petitioner and chronic ill-health of his ailing mother, the

petitioner was unable to perform duty regularly during the charge sheet period and submitted Medical Certificates.

Due to acute ill-health, the petitioner became very weak but he was subjected to victimization and counseling period

of (03) months was not afforded to improve his attendance. Further, the petitioner was given duty from 21.05.2012

but his attendance during the year 2010 and 2011 was shown as “NIL” in the Charge Sheet which is false and highly

misconceived. There is reasonable and sufficient cause for the alleged absence of the petitioner during the charge

sheet period and it cannot be termed as misconduct. But, the respondent No.2 dismissed him from his service vide

Proc. dt.26.10.2017 with effect from 09.11.2017, which is highly arbitrary and against the basic principles of natural

justice.

2(d). Further, the capital punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by the respondent No.2, without issuing

any prior show cause notice proposing the said punishment of dismissal from service. It is against the settled Law and

contrary to the principles of natural Justice. The extreme punishment of dismissal from service is highly excessive and

shockingly disproportionate. It amounts to the economic death of the petitioner, which is not warranted and deserves

to be set aside by this Court. The petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any other alternative job

inspite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other source of livelihood. Therefore, he prays

to set aside the dismissal order dt.26.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 and to direct the Respondents’-Company

to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits and full back wages.

On the other side the Respondents/Management filed counter by admitting the employment of the

Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents’-Company, however, inter-alia contended that the petitioner was appointed

in to the services of the Respondents’-Company as Badli Filler during the year 2012 at KTK 2-Incline. It is false to

allege that the respondents’-company utilized the services of the petitioner in the absentee vacancy of regular coal

fillers. It is true the respondent No.2 dismissed the petitioner from his service due to his chronic absenteeism in

attending his duties even after giving several opportunities to improve his attendance wherein the Petitioner failed to

improve attendance as such, he was dismissed from the services of the Respondents’-Company.

3(a). The averments that the petitioner is the only son, his father expired while in service and there was nobody to

look after his ailing mother and as his father worked at Bhupalpally area, the petitioner and his mother residing at

Bhupalpally and due his posting to R.K-1A Incline in Mandamarri Area, he was compelled to stay at Mandamarri and

the underground atmosphere, water did not suit him and his heath condition was badly deteriorated and unfortunately

the petitioner sustained injuries while on duty in the underground due to falling of big coal stone on him and he was

given treatment at Area Hospital at Mandamarri and keeping in ICU during the year 2014 and in that incident the

petitioner's mother suffered apprehension, fear and "PHOBIA" and he suffered chronic ill-health and he looked after

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4465

his ailing mother due which he could not attend to his duties during the 2015 etc., are false and baseless. The

respondents are not aware of the said allegations of the petitioner and the respondents denied the same. The petitioner

is put to strict proof of the same.

3(b). It is to submit that the attendance particulars for the year 2015 indicate the fact that the petitioner has put in NIL

musters and he was absent to his duties throughout the year:-

Sl.

No.

Month

Absents

No.of days Absent

January-2015

01 to 31

February-2015

01 to 28

March-2015

01 to 31

April-2015

01 to 30

May-2015

01 to 31

June-2015

01 to 30

July-2015

01 to 31

August-2015

01 to 31

September-2015

01 to 30

10.

October-2015

01 to 31

11.

November-2015

01 to 30

12.

December-2015

01 to 31

Total

365

Sl.

No.

Year

No. of days 30 worked

2010

NIL

2011

NIL

2012

2013

2014

Further, the petitioner is a chronic absentee and he is not interested to do work. He was charge sheeted earlier for his

unauthorized absenteeism and imposed punishment of (10) days suspension from duty vide Officer Order

dt.25.07.2016. As the petitioner remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave during the Calendar year

2015, he was issued charge sheet dt.27.07.2016.

3(c). Further, as the petitioner was not attending to his duties, the charge sheet was send through registered post with

acknowledgement due to his address Postal Address, but the same has been returned as un-delivered by the postal

authorities. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was called for Counseling on 28.07.2016 but the Petitioner failed

to attend the counseling. And the Petitioner was also given (03) months time from 01.08.2016 to improve attendance

but the Petitioner failed to report for duty. It is to submit that since the petitioner was not attending the duty and the

Registered Post was returned as undelivered, the letter of Charge sheet-cum-enquiry notice were published in Telugu

Daily News Paper "ANDHRA JYOTHI" dt.19.10.2016 advising the petitioner to attend for an enquiry fixed on

27.10.2016 at 11.30 a.m. in the Office of the SOM RK-1A Incline along with witnesses and documents, if any, to

defend his case or otherwise ex-parte enquiry will be conducted. The petitioner has neither attended the enquiry nor

sent any representation or representative on the schedule date, time and place as published in the News Paper and did

not seek adjournment of the enquiry expressing his inability to attend the enquiry, as such, the enquiry was conducted

ex-parte. Thus, the petitioner did not put-in required number of musters of (190) per year during 2015 & 2016. He had

neither improved his performance even after issuing the charge sheet nor utilized the opportunities offered by the

Management and could not make use of them and he continued his persistent and habitual absence from his duties.

3(d). It is submitted that since he has not put-in the required minimum musters and there were no extenuating

circumstances to take lenient view, the Respondent Company after issuance of show cause notice dt.01.06.2017, was

constrained

dismiss

the

petitioner

from

service

with

effect

from

09.11.2017,

vide

order

No. MMR/PER/D/O72/17I6079, dt:26.10.2017 since persistent and habitual absenteeism was absolutely reasonable

cause for the termination of his services by duly following the service rules in vogue. Further, it is submitted that the

Respondents’-Company employees about 51,000 persons, which includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The

production results will depend upon the overall attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are

inter-linked and inseparable. In this regard, if any one remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified

cause, the work to be performed gets hampered very badly. No establishment can work effectively, if its employees

are irregular in attendance as it cords the very potentiality, credibility and productivity. Such unauthorized absence

creates sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill-up and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed.

4466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

That is the reason why, the Respondents’-Company is compelled to take justifiable action against the unauthorized

absentees after extending reasonable opportunities to improve.

3(e). It is to submit that the petitioner/workman is one such un-authorized absentee who failed to improve his

performance even after giving several opportunities. The petitioner/workman did not take use of the fair opportunities

provided to him to improve his performance in the subsequent year also. As such, the Management lost confidence on

the petitioner due to his habitual and persistent absence from duties. Hence, the Respondent Company was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner/workman from the company with effect from 09.11.2017 vide order

No.MMR/PER/D/072/17/ 6079, dt.26.10.2017, which is justified. The other allegations of the petition are denied and

the Respondents’-Company prayed to dismiss the petition, without granting any relief to the petitioner.

4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-8 and on the other side for the

Respondents’-Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-12 were marked.

Arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioner/workman as well as learned counsel for the

Respondents/Management heard. Perused the record produced before this Tribunal, written arguments and citations.

Now the points for consideration are:-

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents is held valid or not?

Whether the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved basing on evidence or not?

Whether the dismissal order dt.26.10.2017 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is entitled

to reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back wages?

If not to what relief is the worker entitled to?”

From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’-Company, these are the admitted facts that

the petitioner/workman worked as Badli-Filler (Underground) in the Respondents’-Company and he was dismissed

from service. Ex.M-1 is the Proceedings of the Enquiry (04) pages, Ex.M-2 is the Report of Enquiry Officer (04)

pages, Ex.M-3 is the Charge Sheet, Ex.M-4 is the (03) Months observation letter, Ex.M-5 is the Un-served Postal

Cover, Ex.M-6 is the Letter of Paper Publication annexed with Charge Sheet-cum-Notice and publication mater

published in ANDHRA JYOTHI Telugu Daily News Paper, dt.19.10.2016, Ex.M-7 is the Paper publication in

ANDHRA JYOTHI, Ex.M-8 is the letter advising the petitioner to submit his comments on the enquiry within (07)

Days notice, Ex.M-9 is the letter to respondent to take Disciplinary against the petitioner, as (07) days notice period

completed, Ex.M-10 is the Proceedings of dismissal (03) pages, Ex.M-11 is the name removal order and Ex.M-12 is

the Postal acknowledgement. On the other side, the petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 to W-8 on their behalf. Ex.W-1 is

Provision of employment to minor male dependants kept on live roaster, Ex.W-2 is the registered Proforma showing

petitioner’s name at Sl.No.01, Ex.W-3 is the Office Order appointing the petitioner, in place of his deceased father,

Ex.W-4 is the Posting Order, Ex.W-5 is the Charge sheet-cum-Enquiry notice, Ex.W-6 is the Dismissal Order issued

by the respondent No.2, Ex.W-7 is the Name removal order issued by R-1 and Ex.W-8 is the O/c. of Demand letter

with R.P receipts. The above documents of both sides are not in much dispute by either side.

Here, the learned counsel for the respondents’-company has strenuously argued that the petitioner was

appointed as Badli Filler during the year 2012 at KTK 2-Incline. It is false to allege that the respondents’-company

utilized the services of the petitioner in the absentee vacancy of regular coal fillers. It is true the respondent No.2

dismissed the petitioner from his service due to his chronic absenteeism in attending his duties even after giving

several opportunities to improve his attendance.

8(a). Further, the learned counsel for the respondents’-company argued that all the contentions of the

petitioner/workman that he is the only son, his father expired while in service and there was nobody to look after his

ailing mother are all false and incorrect. Further, his contentions that his father worked at Bhupalpally area, the

petitioner and his mother were residing at Bhupalpally and due his posting to R.K-1A Incline in Mandamarri Area, he

was compelled to stay at Mandamarri. But, the underground atmosphere and water did not suit him and his health

condition was badly deteriorated are also false and incorrect. His further contention that the petitioner sustained

injuries while on duty in the underground due to falling of big coal stone on him and he was given treatment at Area

Hospital at Mandamarri and keeping in ICU during the year 2014 and in that incident the petitioner's mother suffered

apprehension, fear and "PHOBIA" are false and baseless. The respondents are not aware of the said allegations of the

petitioner and the respondents denied the same. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

8(b). Further, the learned counsel for the respondents’-company argued that the petitioner has put in NIL musters

during the year 2015. The petitioner was charge sheeted earlier for his unauthorized absenteeism and imposed

punishment of (10) days suspension from duty vide Officer Order dt.25.07.2016. As the petitioner remained absent

from duty without any sanctioned leave during the Calendar year 2015, he was issued charge sheet dt.27.07.2016. As

the petitioner was not attending to his duties, the charge sheet was sent to him by registered post; but, the same was

returned un-delivered by the postal authorities. The petitioner was called for counseling on 28.07.2016 but he failed to

attend the counseling. He was given (03) months time from 01.08.2016, to improve attendance but the petitioner

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4467

failed to report for duty. Since the petitioner was not attending the duty, the letter of Charge sheet-cum-enquiry notice

were published in Telugu Daily News Paper "ANDHRA JYOTHI" dt.19.10.2016 advising the petitioner to attend for

an enquiry fixed on 27.10.2016 to defend his case; or otherwise ex-parte enquiry will be conducted. The petitioner has

neither attended the enquiry nor sent any representation or representative on the schedule date and did not seek

adjournment of the enquiry. As such, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. The petitioner did not put-in required

number of musters of (190) per year during 2015 & 2016.

8(c). The learned counsel for the respondents’-company also argued that since the petitioner/workman has not put-in

the required minimum musters and there were no extenuating circumstances to take lenient view, the respondents’-

company after issuance of show cause notice dt.01.06.2017, dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from

09.11.2017 by order dt:26.10.2017, duly following the service rules in vogue. The Respondents’-Company employed

about 51,000 persons, which includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The production results will depend upon

the overall attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable. If anyone

remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets hampered very

badly. No establishment can work effectively, if its employees are irregular in attendance as it cords the very

potentiality, credibility and productivity. Due to such unauthorized absence, already planned schedules get suddenly

disturbed. Hence, the Respondents’-Company is compelled to take justifiable action against the unauthorized

absentees after extending reasonable opportunities to improve. The petitioner/workman is one such unauthorized

absentee, who failed to improve his performance even after giving several opportunities. The petitioner/workman did

not take use of the fair opportunities provided to him to improve his performance in the subsequent year also. Hence,

the Respondent Company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner/workman from the company with effect from

09.11.2017 by order dt.26.10.2017, which is justified. The other allegations of the petition are denied and the

respondents’ company prays to dismiss the petition

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman contended that the Petitioner/Workman was

appointed in the Respondents’-Company during the year 2012 as Badili Filler in place of his deceased father Uppula

Rajaiah, Ex.Coal Filler, who died while in service during in the year 2006. The petitioner’s name was kept on live

roaster and after attaining (18) years of age, he was provided dependant employment in place of late father, vide

Office Order dt.21.10.2011. After completing basic job training at MVTC, he was posted to work as Badli Filler

(Under Ground), vide Officer Order dt.21.05.2012, in the absentee vacancies of regular Coal Fillers. Further, the

petitioner was the only son, his father expired while in service and there is nobody to look after his ailing mother. As

his father worked in Bhupalpalli Area, the petitioner and his mother were residing at Bhupalpalli. But, due to his

posting to RK.1A Incline in Mandamarri Area, the petitioner was compelled to stay at Mandamarri. But, as the

underground atmosphere and water of Mandamarri Area did not suit him, his health condition was badly deteriorated.

Further, he sustained injuries while on duty in the underground due to felling of big Coal Stone on him. He was given

treatment in the Area Hospital Mandamarri, by keeping him ICU during the year 2014. On that incident, the

petitioner’s mother suffered apprehension, fear and “Phobia”. Further, the petitioner suffered from chronic ill-health

and he had to look after his ailing mother and as such, he could not attend to his duties during the year 2015. But, the

respondent No.1 issued charge sheet dt.27.07.2016 alleging “25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or

sufficient cause or over staying beyond sanctioned leave”.

9(a).

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that due to ill-health of the petitioner and chronic ill-

health of his ailing mother, the petitioner was unable to perform duty regularly during the charge sheet period.

Further, the petitioner was given duty from 21.05.2012 but his attendance during the years 2010 and 2011 was shown

as “NIL” in the Charge Sheet which is false and highly misconceived. Due to ill-health, the petitioner became very

weak and there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his absence during the charge sheet period and it cannot be

termed as misconduct. But, the respondent No.2 dismissed him from his service vide Proc. dt.26.10.2017 with effect

from 09.11.2017, which is highly arbitrary and against the basic principles of natural justice.

9(b). Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the capital punishment of dismissal from service

was imposed on the petitioner/workman, without issuing any prior show cause notice proposing the said punishment

of dismissal from service. It is against the settled Law and contrary to the principles of natural Justice. Further, the

extreme punishment of dismissal from service is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate. It amounts to the

economic death of the petitioner, which is not warranted and deserves to be set aside by this Court. The petitioner is

out of employment and could not secure any other alternative job inspite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor

family and has no other source of livelihood. Therefore, he prays to set aside the dismissal order dt.26.10.2017 passed

by the respondent No.2 and to direct the Respondents’-Company to reinstate him into service with continuity of

service, all other consequential attendant benefits and full back wages.

POINT No.1:

10.

In this matter, initially the petitioner/workman denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report. But, on

13.06.2023, the learned counsel for petitioner filed memo under Sec.11-A of I.D Act by accepting the procedure of

domestic enquiry against the petitioner, hence, this Tribunal holding the domestic enquiry is valid. However, this is a

4468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

beneficial legislation and social legislation and in view of settled law, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence

and come to its own conclusion with regard to finding guilty or not. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

POINT No. 2 & 3:

11.

In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as Respondents/corporation as well as in view of

the arguments of their respective counsel now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the

petitioner was dismissed from service by Proc. dt.26.10.2017 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was absent from

duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause during the year 2015.

12.

A perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner and (2) other minor dependants of deceased SCCL-

workmen were kept on Live Roaster and their particulars were called for in the revised Proforma, by letter

dt.07.12.2010 which is marked as Ex. W-1. Further, the petitioner/workman was appointed as Badli Coal Filler to

work at Mandamarri Area, by Office Order dt.21.10.2011 which is marked as Ex.W-2. It appears from this

appointment order that the petitioner will be given employment in the absentee vacancies of Coal Fillers and he will

be shown work as and when available and that he was to find-out the work in place of permanent coal fillers who are

temporarily absent. Further, it is also mentioned in the appointment order that the petitioner will be paid wages on

piece rate base, on the days he was engaged on coal filling against the absentee vacancies. Further, the

petitioner/workman and (1) other dependant who have completed basic job training at MVTC were posted to RK.1A

incline, by Office Order dt.21.05.2012, which is marked as Ex.W-3 that he was called for screening test on

08.11.2013 and he was examined by Ortho surgeon and physician of the respondents company, as per the counter

filed by the respondents. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner/workman was joined duty as Badli Coal Filler during

May 2012 only and hence the allegation that he put in (--) i.e., “Nil” musters during the years 2010 and 2011 as

mentioned in the charge sheet under Ex M-3 and counter of the respondents is not correct and misconceived, since the

petitioner was given job vide office order dt.21.05.2012 only which is marked as Ex W-4; and further he was not on

the rolls of the respondents’ company during the previous years 2010 and 2011.

12(a).

Apart from the above, a perusal of Ex.M-1 proceedings of enquiry shows that as the Petitioner/Workman did

not attend the domestic enquiry, exparte enquiry was conducted. Further, the (3) months observation letter

dt.29.07.2016 under Ex.M-4 was returned un-served by the postal authorities, which is marked as Ex.M-5. Charge

sheet-cum-enquiry notice under Ex.M-6 was published in the News Paper which is marked as Ex.M-7. Further, the

petitioner was asked to submit his representation if any, on the enquiry findings report under Ex.M-8 and (7) days

notice was given under Ex. M-9. Accordingly, the petitioner/workman was dismissed from service by Proc.

dt.26.10.2017 which is marked as Ex. M-10 and the name removal letter is marked as Ex. M-11 and the postal

acknowledgement is marked as Ex. M-12. All the documents marked as Ex. M-1 to Ex.M-12 on behalf of the

respondents are attested photo-copies. Therefore, as per Ex.M-4 enquiry report as well as material on record, it shows

that the petitioner had not put in minimum required musters of 190 while he was in duty from the date of his

appointment. On the other hand, the petitioner submitted that due to ill-health and chronic ill-health of his ailing

mother, he was unable to perform duty regularly during the charge sheet period and submitted medical certificate.

Hence, it is clear that from the record that the petitioner has not attended to duties regularly. Hence, the charges

leveled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents/ corporation has no axe to

grind against the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the charges leveled against the

petitioner/workman are proved and misconduct of the workman is established basing on the evidence and findings of

enquiry officer are not perverse. Moreover, this is not the case of loaded dice situation against the petitioner by the

respondents/ corporation.

12(b). Apart from the above, the contention of the Petitioner/ Workman is that he was appointed as Badli Coal

Filler in the year 2012 in place of his deceased father who died while in service and that he served the company only

for (3) years, this is his very 1^st dismissal from service and he hails from a very poor family and has got no other

livelihood and facing untold financial problems, hence prayed to consider the case under section 11-A of I.D., Act.

13.

In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has relied upon a

decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), wherein their lordships observed that:

“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted keeping

in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the

Constitution. Merely because workman approached to Labour Court with delay, relief cannot be denied. No

indication in the Act that delay extinguishes right conferred on the workmen under Industrial Law. The

Labour Court is conferred with very wide discretion under section 11-A. The Industrial Court conferred with

very wide discretion under section 11-A of the Act for granting appropriate relief”.

14.

Therefore, in view of the above decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case, if we come to quantum

of sentence it is settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised under section 11-A is available only on the

existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the

conscience of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence,

or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. Therefore, in

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िनवरी 6, 2024/पौष 16, 1945

4469

the present case on hand, a perusal of record, it shows that this is the very 1^st dismissal from service of the petitioner.

Further, the petitioner submitted that he hail from a very poor family and has got no other livelihood and facing

untold financial problems, hence prayed to consider the case under section 11-A of I.D., Act. Hence, in view of the

above circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment imposed by the respondents/

company against the Petitioner deserves to be set aside since the disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to act

arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight between David and Goliath as in the

present case on hand.

15.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and keeping in view of the principle “temper justice

with mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the

Petitioner vide the Proceedings, dt.26.10.2017 under Ex.M-10 deserves to be set aside. However, since the charge

leveled against the petitioner is proved, the relief is to be molded by this Tribunal properly and this Tribunal is of the

considered opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service. However, the petitioner is not entitled to

any back wages or any attendant benefits since the petitioner might have gainfully employed during pendency of this

Industrial Dispute from the date of dismissal of petitioner. Hence, the punishment imposed by the Respondents

company is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Point No.2 & 3 are answered.

16.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The removal order, dt.26.10.2017 under Ex.M-10 passed

by the Respondent No.2 is hereby set aside by modifying the punishment of dismissal from service appropriately.

The respondents/company is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service only, but without any continuity of

service, without any attendant benefits and without any back wages from the date of his dismissal to till date. The

petitioner is entitled to the salary only from the date of publication this Award. Copy of the Award be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by Senior Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this

the 20^th day of October, 2023.

Dr. T. SRINIVASA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN:-

FOR MANAGEMENT;-

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

07.12.2010

Provision of employment to minor male dependants kept on live

roaster.

Ex.W-2

Dt.

07.10.2010

Proforma showing petitioner’s name at Sl.No.01.

Ex.W-3

Dt.

21.10.2011

Office Order appointing the petitioner, in place of his deceased

father.

Ex.W-4

Dt.

21.05.2012

Posting Order.

Ex.W-5

Dt.

21.05.2012

Charge sheet-cum-Enquiry notice

Ex.W-6

Dt.

26.10.2017

Dismissal Order issued by the respondent No.2.

Ex.W-7

Dt.

08.11.2017

Name removal order issued by R-1.

Ex.W-8

Dt.

03.07.2018

O/c. of Demand letter with RP receipts.

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

27.07.2016

Proceedings of the Enquiry 4 pages

Ex.M-2

Dt.

27.07.2016

Report of Enquiry 4 pages

Ex.M-3

Dt.

27.07.2016

Charge Sheet

Ex.M-4

Dt.

29.07.2016

3 Months observation letter.

Ex.M-5

Dt.

29.08.2016

Unserved postal Cover

Ex.M-6

Dt.

17.09.2016

Letter of Paper Publication Annexed with Charge Sheet-cum-Notice

and publication mater published in Adhdra Jyothi Telugu Daily News

4470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2024/PAUSHA 16, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Paper, dt.19.10.2016

Ex.M-7

Dt.

19.10.2016

Paper publication in Andhra Jyothi

Ex.M-8

Dt.

01.06.2017

7 Days notice to the petitioner

Ex.M-9

Dt.

28.07.2017

Disciplinary action 7days notice

Ex.M-10

Dt.

26.10.2017

Letter of dismissal 3 pages

Ex.M-11

Dt.

08.11.2017

Name removal order

Ex.M-12

Dt.

07.03.2018

Postal acknowledgement

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. MANOJ KUMAR

VERMA

Digitally signed by

MANOJ KUMAR VERMA

Date: 2024.01.11

19:35:51 +05'30'