566 GI/2024

(385)

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. 5]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 4—फरवरी 10, 2024, िजनवार/माघ 15—माघ 21, 1945

No. 5]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 4—FEBRUARY 10, 2024, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 15–MEGHA 21, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कौिल जवकास और उद्यमिीलता मंत्रालय

(प्रजिक्षण मिाजनिेिालय)

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 162.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग जनयम 1976 (यथा

संिोजित 1987) के जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरण में एतद्द्वारा प्रजिक्षण मिाजनिेिालय (कौिल जवकास

और उद्यमिीलता मंत्रालय) के अिीनस्ट्थ कायाालयों क्षेत्रीय कौिल जवकास और उद्यमिीलता जनिेिालय, मिाराष्ट्र तथा

राष्ट्रीय कौिल प्रजिक्षण संस्ट्थान, मुंबई को जिसके 80% से अजिक कमाचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया

िै, अजिसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं. डीिीटी-ई-11012/1/2017-हिंिी]

गुलाब चंद्रा, सिा. जनिेिक

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-27022024-252363

CG-DL-W-27022024-252363

386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

(Directorate General of Training)

New Delhi, the 5th February,2024

S.O. 162.—In Pursuance of sub- rule (2) and (4) rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use of Official Purposes

of the Union) Rule 1976 (As Amended 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the Regional Directorate of

Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Maharashtra and National Skill Training Institute, Mumbai are subordinate

offices of Directorate General of Training (Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship), more than 80%

staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. DGT-E-11012/1/2017-HINDI]

GULAB CHANDRA, Asstt. Director

पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 163.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का

अिान) अजिजनयम 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3

की उप-िारा (1) भारत के रािपत्र, (असािारण) के अिीन िारी की गयी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और

प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख़्या का.आ. 994(अ), तारीख 02 माचा 2022, में प्रकाजित की गई

थी,द्वारा उक्त अजिसूचना से संलंग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के द्वारा

तजमलनाडु राज्य में एन्नोर– जतरुवल्लूर – बेंगलुरु – पुिुचेरी– नागपरिनम – मिुरै – टूरटकोररन प्राकृजतक गैस

पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के पररविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग

के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आियकी घोषणा की थी।

और उक्त अजिसूचना की प्रजतयााँ िनता को तारीख 07.03.2022 से उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी।

और उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप - िारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार

को अपनी ररपोटा प्रस्ट्तुत कर िी िै।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त ररपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश्चात यि समािान िो गया िै दक इस

अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान दकया िाना चाजिए।

अत: अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार,उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप-िारा(1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग

करते हुए यि घोषणा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना के संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट उक्त भूजम में पाइपलाइन

जबछाने के जलए उपयोग का अजिकार अर्िात दकया िाता िै।

यि और दक केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप-िारा(4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का

प्रयोग करते हुए यि जनिेि िेती िै दक उक्त भूजम के उपयोग का अजिकार इस अजिसूचना के प्रकाि की तारीख से

केन्द्रीय सरकार में जनजित िोने की बिाए, सभी रुकावटों से मुक्त िो कर इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड में

जनजित िोगा ।

पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन अजिजनयम, 1962 की िारा 10 के अिीन दकसी भी क्षजतपूर्ता के

जलए इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड पूणातया उत्तरिायी िोगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बजन्ित दकसी भी

मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के जवरुद्ध कोई वाि िावा या कानूनी कायावािी निीं िो सकेगी।

अनुसूची

जिला : जतरुवल्लूर राज्य : तजमलनाडु

तालुका

गााँव

सवेक्षणसं.-

खण्डसं.

उपखण्डसं

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेर

एयर

वगामीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

ऊथ्थुक्कोिै

79. नेयवेली

368

1ए1

369

1ए1बी

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

387

ग़ुजम्मजडपूंजड

46. जसरुपुिलपेिै-II

995

(ग़ुरुवराि कंजडगै)

994

1ए

1005

6बी

1005

7बी

1004

2ओ

1004

2आर

[फा .सं. एल-14014/32/2022-िी पी -II(ई-41702)]

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 163.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas number S.O.No.994(E) dated: 02.03.2022 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

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

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

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

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

of Tamil Nadu by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public from 07.03.2022.

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

submitted his report to the Central Government;

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

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

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

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

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

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

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

encumbrances.

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

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

relating to pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District: Tiruvallur State : Tamil Nadu

Taluk

Village

Survey No. /

Division No.

Sub

Division

No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Meter

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Uthukkottai

79.Neyveli

368

1A1

369

1A1B

Gummidipoondi

46.Sirupuzhalpettai-II

(Guruvarajakandigai)

995

994

1005

1004

[F. No. L-14014-32-2022-GP-II(E-41702)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 164.—भारत सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उक्त अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की िारा 3 दक उपिारा (1) के

अिीन िारी भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की अजिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2389 (अ) तारीख

26.05.2022 और का. आ. 2415 (अ) तारीख 31.05.2023 िो भारत के असािारण रािपत्र तारीख 26.05.2022

और 02.06.2023 में प्रकाजित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में मैससा इंद्रिनुष

गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा जमिोरम राज्य में पाजनसागर - अईज़ोल खंड प्रकृजतक गैस पाइपलाइन के माघ् यम से प्रकृजतक गैस

के पररविन के जलए पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की

घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त रािपजत्रत अजिसूचना की प्रजतयााँ िनता को उपलब्ि करा िी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने िनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों को परीक्षण के उपरांत जनपटान कर दिया िै;

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने, उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उप - िारा (1) के अिीन भारत सरकार को अपनी

ररपोटा िे िी िै;

और भारत सरकार ने, उक्त ररपोटा पर जवचार करने के पश्चात और यि संतुष्ट िो िाने पर दक उक्त भूजम

पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए अपेजक्षत िै, उसमें उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;

अतः अब, भारत सरकार, उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 दक उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुये,

यि घोषणा करती िै दक इस अजिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्िाष्ट भूजम में पाइपलाइन जबछाने के जलए उपयोग के

अजिकार का अिान दकया िाता िै;

और भारत सरकार, उक्त अजिजनयम दक िारा 6 दक उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुये, यि

जनिेि िेती िै दक पाइपलाइने जबछाने के जलए भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख को, भारत

सरकार में जनजित िोने के बिाय, पाइपलाइन जबछाने का प्रस्ट्ताव करने वाली मैससा इंद्रिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित

िोगा और तिुपरर, भूजम में ऐसे उपयोग का अजिकार, इस प्रकार अजिरोजपत जनबंिनों और ितों के अिीन रिते हुये, सभी

जवलंगमों से मुक्त, मैससा इंद्रिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगा।

अनुसूची

जिला: अईज़ोल

राज्य:जमज़ोरम

तिसील/ब्लॉक

गााँव

सवेनं

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेअर

आर

वगा मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

तलंगनूअम

जसिमुई

अईज़ 1-1A

अईज़ 1-2

अईज़ 1-3

अईज़ 1-4

अईज़ 1-5

अईज़ 1-6

तलंगनूअम

सकोरतुईछूउन

अईज़ 2-7

अईज़ 2-8

अईज़ 2-9

अईज़ 2-10

अईज़ 2-11

अईज़ 2-12

अईज़ 2-13

अईज़ 2-14

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

389

अईज़ 2-15

अईज़ 2-16

अईज़ 2-17

अईज़ 2-18

अईज़ 2-19

अईज़ 2-19A

तलंगनूअम

लुआंगमुअल

अईज़ 3-20

अईज़ 3-21

अईज़ 3-22

अईज़ 3-23

अईज़ 3-24

[फा. सं. एल-14014/109/2022-िीपी-II(ई-43045)]

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th January,2024

S.O. 164.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O.No.2389(E) dated the 26.05.2022 and S.O.No.2415(E) dated the 31.05.2023, issued under sub-section (1) of

section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962),

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 26.05.2022 &

02.06.2023, the Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the

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

Panisagar – Aizawl Pipeline section of North – East Natural Gas Pipeline Grid Project in the state of Mizoram, by

Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL).

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

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

disposed by the Competent Authority.

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

report to the Government of India.

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

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

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

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

this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

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

of India, vest, on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (IGGL), free

from all encumbrances

SCHEDULE

District: Aizawl State : Mizoram

Block/Tehsil

Village

Survey No

Area

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Tlangnuam

SairangSihhmui

AIZ 1-1A

AIZ 1-2

390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AIZ 1-3

AIZ 1-4

AIZ 1-5

AIZ 1-6

Tlangnuam

Sakawrtuichhan

AIZ 2-7

AIZ 2-8

AIZ 2-9

AIZ 2-10

AIZ 2-11

AIZ 2-12

AIZ 2-13

AIZ 2-14

AIZ 2-15

AIZ 2-16

AIZ 2-17

AIZ 2-18

AIZ 2-19

AIZ 2-19A

Tlangnuam

Luangmual

AIZ 3-20

AIZ 3-21

AIZ 3-22

AIZ 3-23

AIZ 3-24

[F. No. L-14014/109/2022-GP-II (E-43045)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 165.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक असम राज्य में नाथा - इस्ट्ट

नेचुरल गैस पाइपलाइन जिड पररयोिना के गुवािाटी – जिलांग- जसलचर- पानीसागर खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गैस के

पररविन के जलए मैससा इंद्रिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;

और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइप लाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक उस भूजम

में, जिसमे उक्त पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िै और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णात िै, उपयोग के

अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;

अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइप लाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)

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

उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोषणा करती िै;

कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक् त अनुसूची मे वर्णात भूजम में जितबद्व िै, उस ताररख से जिसको उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 3

की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािपत्र में यथा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारण िनता को उपलब्ि कर

िी िाती िै, 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीचे पाइप लाइन जबछाए िाने की संबंि मे, सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मैससा इंद्रिनुष गैस

जिड जलजमटेड, असम राज्य, को जलजखत रूप में आक्षेप भेि सकेगा |

अनुसूची

जिला : कामरूप मेरो राज्य : असम

तालुका

गााँव

सवेक्षणसं.- खण्डसं.

उपखण्डसं

क्षेत्रफल

िेक्टेर

एयर

वगामीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

सोनापुर

768

317

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

391

सोनापुर

सोनापुर पठार

402

135

249

382

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

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 165.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of natural gas through Guwahati – Shillong – Silchar-Panisagar Section of North - East Natural Gas

Pipeline Grid Project in the State of Assam, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited;

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

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

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

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

declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

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

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

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

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited, State of

Assam.

SCHEDULE

District:- Kamrup (M)

State :- Assam

Circle

Tahsil

Name of the

Village/ Mouza

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Sonapur

768

Sonapur

Sonapur Pathar

317

402

135

249

382

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

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 166.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक मेघालय राज्य में नाथा -

इस्ट्ट नेचुरल गैस पाइपलाइन जिड पररयोिना के गुवािाटी – जिलांग- जसलचर- पानीसागर खंड के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक

गैस के पररविन के जलए मैससा इंद्रिनुष गैस जिड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन जबछाई िानी चाजिए;

और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोिन के जलए यि आवश्यक प्रतीत िोता िै दक उस भूजम में,

जिसमे उक्त पाइपलाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव िै और िो इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णात िै, उपयोग के

अजिकार का अिान दकया िाए;

392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अतः अब, भारत सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान)

उपयोग के अजिकार का अिान करने के अपने आिय की घोषणा करती िै;

कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक् त अनुसूची मे वर्णात भूजम में जितबिि िै, उस ताररख से जिसको उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 3

की उपिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािपत्र मे यथा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूचना की प्रजतयों सािारण िनता को उपलब्ि कर

जिड जलजमटेड, मेघालय राज्य, को जलजखत रूप में आक्षेप भेि सकेगा |

अनुसूची

सी एंड आर डी ब्लॉक: मावररंगकेनेंग

जिला: - पूवी खासी जिल्स

राज्य:- मेघालय

सीररल

संख्या.

गांव का नाम

सवे संख्या

क्षेत्र

िेक्टेयर

आर

वगा मीटर

जडएंगपासोि िारोइट

काटा रैक

एस2- सी /014

एस 2- सी /015

एस 2- सी /016

एस 2- सी /017

एस 2- सी /018

एस 2- सी /019

एस 2- सी /020

एस 2- सी /021

काटा रैक

एस 5- सी /034

एस 5- सी /036

एस 5- सी /037

एस 5- सी /038

एस 5- सी /039

एस 5- सी /040

[फा. सं. एल-14014/250/2022-िीपी-II(ई-45397)]

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 166.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of natural gas through Guwahati – Shillong – Silchar-Panisagar Section of North - East Natural Gas

Pipeline Grid Project in the State of Meghalaya, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited;

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

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

described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

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

declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

393

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

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

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

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited, State of

Meghalaya.

SCHEDULE

C & R D Block: Mawryngkneng

District: - East Khasi Hills

State: - Meghalaya

Sl.

No.

Name of the Village

Survey No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr.

Diengpasoh Jaroit

Cart Track

S2-C/014

S2-C/015

S2-C/016

S2-C/017

S2-C/018

S2-C/019

S2-C/020

S2-C/021

Cart Track

S5-C/034

S5-C/036

S5-C/037

S5-C/038

S5-C/039

S5-C/040

[F. No. L-14014/250/2022-GP-II (E-45397)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ.167.—दिनांक 10.01.2020 को भारत के असािारण रािपत्र में प्रकाजित दिनांक 07.01.2020 की

भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 154(अ) के आंजिक संिोिन और पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम

में प्रयोक्ता के अजिकार का अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (इसमें इसके बाि उक्त अजिजनयम किा गया िै) की

िारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार एतिद्वारा, पंिाब राज्य में मैससा गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड की सभी

प्राकृजतक गैस पाइपलाइन पररयोिनाओं के जलए पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में प्रयोक्ता के अजिकार का

अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962 के तित श्री मनबीर हसंि दिल्लों, तिसीलिार, िसूया, जिला - िोजियारपुर, पंिाब सरकार को

श्री गगनिीप हसंि, जिला रािस्ट्व अजिकारी, मोगा, पंिाब सरकार के स्ट्थान पर, अजतररक्त कायाभार आिार पर, सक्षम

प्राजिकारी के कायो का जनवािन करने के जलये प्राजिकृत करती िै I

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

[फा. सं. एल-14014/132/2019-िीपी-II(ई-48328)]

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 167.—In partial modification of Government of India notification no. S.O. 154(E) dated 07.01.2020

published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India dated 10.01.2020 and in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called

the said Act), the Government of India hereby authorizes Shri Manbir Singh Dhillon, Tehsildar, Dasuya, District -

Hoshiarpur, Govt. of Punjab vice Shri Gagandeep Singh, District Revenue Officer, Moga, Govt. of Punjab to perform

the functions of Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in

Land) Act, 1962, on additional charge basis, for all Natural Gas Pipeline Projects of M/s GAIL (India) Limited in the

State of Punjab.

394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

[F. No. L-14014/132/2019-GP-II (E-48328)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 30 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ.168.—पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में प्रयोक्ता के अजिकार का अिान) अजिजनयम, 1962

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

एतिद्वारा नीचे िी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लजखत पि (पिों) िारी व्यजक्त (व्यजक्तयों) को उक् त ताजलका के कॉलम

(2) में उजल्लजखत क्षेत्रों के संबंि में मैससा गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड की गुरिासपुर-िम्मू प्राकृजतक गैस पाइपलाइन के जलए

उक् त अजिजनयम के तित सक्षम प्राजिकारी (प्राजिकाररयों) के कायों का जनवािन करने िेतु प्राजिकृत करती िै:-

ताजलका

व्यजक्तयों का पिनाम

क्षेत्राजिकार

(1)

(2)

1. सिायक आयुक्त, रािस्ट्व, कठुआ जिला, िम्मू और

कश्मीर सरकार

केंद्र िाजसत प्रिेि िम्मू और कश्मीर के जिला कठुआ के आर

ओ डब्लू में आने वाले सभी रािस्ट्व गााँव

2. सिायक आयुक्त, रािस्ट्व, सांबा जिला, िम्मू और

कश्मीर सरकार

केंद्र िाजसत प्रिेि िम्मू और कश्मीर के जिला सांबा के आर

ओ डब्लू में आने वाले सभी रािस्ट्व गााँव

3. सिायक आयुक्त, रािस्ट्व, िम्मू जिला, िम्मू और कश्मीर

सरकार

केंद्र िाजसत प्रिेि िम्मू और कश्मीर के जिला िम्मू के आर

ओ डब्लू में आने वाले सभी रािस्ट्व गााँव

यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की जतजथ से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/37/2023-िीपी-II (ई-48403)]

रामिी लाल मीना, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 168.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

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

authorizes the person(s) holding the post(s) mentioned in column (1) of the Table given below to perform the

functions of Competent Authority(s) under the said Act for Gurdaspur – Jammu Natural Gas Pipeline of M/s. GAIL

(India) Limited in respect of the areas mentioned in Column (2) of the said Table:-

TABLE

Designation of Persons

Areas of Jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

1. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue,Kathua District,

Government of Jammu and Kashmir

All Revenue villages falling in the RoW of District

Kathua, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

2. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue,Samba District,

Government of Jammu and Kashmir

All Revenue villages falling in the RoW of District

Samba, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

3. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue,Jammu District,

Government of Jammu and Kashmir

All Revenue villages falling in the RoW of District

Jammu, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

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

[F. No. L-14014/37/2023-GP-II (E-48403)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ.169.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार के अिान)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण मेंं और पेरोजलयम एवं प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार के 26 मई, 2020 के का.आ.1883 (अ) की अजिसूचना के संिोिन में उक्त अजिजनयम के अिीन उत्तर प्रिेि

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

395

राज्य के राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर जिन्िुस्ट्तान पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड की रेवाड़ी कानपुर पाइपलाइन के जलए अपर नगर

मैजिस्ट् रेट-तृतीय उत्तर प्रिेि सरकार, को श्री जिआ लाल, उप जिलाजिकारी के स्ट् थान पर सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कायों का

जनवािन करने के जलए, प्राजिकृत करती िै।

यि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारीख से लागू िै।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/5/2019-ओआर-1/ई-30377]

पी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 169.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in modification of Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. No. 1883(E) dated the 26^th May, 2020 the Central Government hereby authorizes

Additional City Magistrate-3 Kanpur Nagar, Government of Uttar Pradesh, in place of Shri Jia Lal, Deputy Collector,

to perform the functions of Competent Authority for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited’s Rewari Kanpur

Pipeline under the said Act, within the territory of Uttar Pradesh State.

This notification is applicable from the date of issuance.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/5/2019-OR-1/E-30377]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

Je और रोिगार मंत्रालय

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 170.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 15/1998) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/258/97-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 29th January,2024

S.O. 170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 15/1998) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/258/97 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 15 OF 1998

PARTIES: Management of Nakrakonda Colliery of ECL

Vs.

Gouri Nath Banerjee

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, Adv.

396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

24.11.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/258/97/IR(CM-II) dated 12.06.1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Nakrakonda Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing

Sh. G. N. Banerjee from service w.e.f. 23.1.96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/258/97/IR(CM-II) dated 12.06.1998 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 15 of 1998 was registered on

25.06.1998 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

witnesses.

Parties to the dispute appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective written statement along with

documents.

A brief profile of the workman’s case as disclosed in his written statement is that he was a permanent

employee, initially posted at Ajoy-II Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) as a Fitter

Helper and was appointed as a General Mazdoor on 22.03.1982. He was transferred from Ajoy-II Colliery under

Sripur to Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area on the basis of a Transfer Order No. ECL/CMD/C-6B(R)/84/1129

dated 17.02.1984. On being released from Ajoy-II Colliery vide letter No. ECL/AJ/C-6B/84/1190 dated 22.02.1984

he reported to Nakrakonda Colliery and have worked there for ten (10) years and granted two (2) promotions at

Nakrakonda Colliery on 07.03.1989 and 16/24.01.1994. The Coal Mines Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as

CMPF) account number of the workman mentioned in the Last Pay Certificate (hereinafter referred to as LPC) issued

at the time of transfer is not correct and his CMPF account number is BKR/4/348. It is the case of the workman that

management issued a Charge Sheet bearing No. NKR/PER/94-95/1184 dated 15.07.1994 under Clause 17(i)(a)(o)(u)

of Model Standing Order, on receipt of an anonymous complaint, without any verification, alleging theft, fraud or

dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business. The employer alleged that there was misconduct on the part of

the workman who fabricated documents showing his transfer from Ajoy-II Colliery, Sripur Area to Nakrakonda

Colliery, Bankola Area though the workman was never posted at Ajoy-II Colliery. On the basis of said fabricated

documents the workman fraudulently managed a posting at Nakrakonda Colliery as a transferred employee w.e.f.

02.03.1984 and continued to work and enjoy regular promotions and benefits. The workman submitted a reply to the

Charge Sheet and preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta against the vague Charge Sheet

issued to him. The Writ Petition was disposed of in favour of the petitioner workman and the Charge Sheet was set

aside with a liberty to the management to issue fresh Charge Sheet describing the alleged misconduct. On 01.10.1994

the management of Nakrakonda Colliery issued fresh Charge Sheet bearing No. NKR/PER/94-95/1904 dated

01.10.1994 and a Domestic Enquiry was initiated. The workman was dismissed from service vide Order No. 23 dated

30.01.1996 without giving opportunity to the workman to present his case.

The case of the petitioner workman is that the Enquiry Officer was biased and based his findings on

conjecture and surmise and shifted the entire burden of proof upon the him instead of placing the same upon the

management by holding that he defence has failed to disprove the charge and the prosecution has got no duty to

establish the charge. Further contention of the workman is that the Enquiry Officer did not enquire about the original

Transfer Order, Release Order, and the LPC, which should have been produced by the management as the same were

under the custody of management. The workman categorically stated that the CMPF account number mentioned in

the LPC was not his and his CMPF account number is BKR/4/348 but the Enquiry Officer did not consider to verify

the said statement. The Enquiry Officer also failed to consider that the salary of March, 1984 has been paid to the

concerned workman which could not be done in absence of LPC and the original LPC has been sent in official course

prior to March, 1984. On transfer of the workman at the time of joining his new place of posting at the colliery the

management has verified the Transfer Order but the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the same. The Enquiry Officer

did not take into consideration the documents which were checked and verified by the responsible Officers of the

company. It is claimed that non-examination of the officers having personal knowledge about the matters and non-

production of the original papers before the Enquiry Officer amounts to withholding the best evidence and the

Enquiry Officer ought to have drawn adverse presumption against the management. The vigilance enquiry was started

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

397

by the management against the workman in respect of the aforesaid charges but report of the vigilance officer was not

produced by the Enquiry Officer. The workman urged that punitive action cannot be taken against the workman on

the basis of perverse findings. Regarding the order of dismissal, the delinquent contended that the punishing authority

has not recorded any independent finding while passing the order of major punishment and has acted mechanically

without applying mind. Besides, copy of Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report were not served upon the

workman before dismissing him from service. It is claimed that the impugned order of dismissal dated 23/30.01.1996

issued against Gouri Nath Banerjee is liable to be set aside and the workman should be reinstated in service with back

wages.

The management of Nakrakonda Colliery in their written statement submitted that on the basis of the

complaint received by the management of Nakrakonda Colliery on 31.05.1994 and two other complaints thereafter,

alleging that the workman Gouri Nath Banerjee by using false and fabricated documents like LPC, Transfer order,

Joining Order had joined Nakrakonda Colliery as a transferred employee. The allegation in the complaints were

verified by the management and the Personnel Manager of Ajoy-II Colliery confirmed that the documents were not

issued by them. Charge Sheet was accordingly issued against the workman for committing fraud for the purpose of

joining as a Fitter Helper at Nakrakonda Colliery. The First Charge Sheet was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court at

Calcutta in a writ petition filed by the workman and a fresh Charge Sheet was issued bearing No. NKR/PER/94-

95/1904 dated 01.10.1994 and suspended from service. The reply submitted by the workman was not found

satisfactory and a Domestic Enquiry was held by Senior Personnel Officer of Jhanjra Area. Workman participated in

the Enquiry Proceeding. On completion of the enquiry the workman was found guilty of the charge and was

dismissed from service by a order issued by the Chief General Manager of Bankola Area vide letter dated 23.01.1996

(Exhibit W-33). It is urged that the dismissal of the workman is proper and there is no necessity for interfering with

the order of dismissal.

An Industrial Dispute has been raised by the aggrieved workman. Initially only documentary evidence was

produced by the parties and no effective evidence was adduced. On the basis of available materials and evidence an

Award was passed by this Tribunal on 10.03.2010, where the action of the management of Nakrakonda Colliery of

ECL dismissing the workman Gouri Nath Banerjee w.e.f. 23.01.1996 was not found legal and justified. A direction

was given for reinstatement of the workman in his service from the date of his dismissal along with back wages and

all consequential benefits due to him as if he was in service since then. An order was made for disbursement of the

dues within two months from the date of Notification of the Award.

The management of ECL being aggrieved with the Award, preferred a Writ Petition bearing No. 15750(W)

of 2010 before the Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. Learned Judge of the Single Bench upheld the

decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and also allowed a cost of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the workman in addition to his entitlement in the impugned order.

The aggrieved employer preferred a Mandamus Appeal bearing MAT No. 1375 of 2018. Learned counsel for

the appellant contended before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta that the Industrial Tribunal passed the Award

without giving opportunity to the management of ECL to prove the charge by leading evidence before the Tribunal. It

was further contended that the Tribunal was required to decide the validity of the Enquiry as a preliminary issue and if

Tribunal held that the charges against the respondent no. 1 could not be established in the Domestic Enquiry,

opportunity should be given to the management of ECL to prove the charges by leading evidence. Learned counsel

placed his reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Delhi Cloth and General

Mills Co. vs Ludh Budh Singh [(1972) 1 SCC 595] and Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Company and

another [AIR (1979) SC 1652]. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal by holding that :

“………….that the finding of the tribunal insofar as the validity of the domestic enquiry is concerned calls for no

interference as the same was based on materials available in the records and the learned single judge was justified in

not interfering with such finding.”

The Hon’ble High Court granted ECL the opportunity to prove the misconduct by adducing evidence in the case. The

appeal was allowed and the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15750(W) of

2010 as well as the last part of the Award dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Reference No. 15 of 1998,

directing reinstatement with consequential and monetary benefits were also set aside. On remitting the matter this

Tribunal has been directed to decide the Reference case no. 15 of 1998 afresh from the stage of decision on the

preliminary issue in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the decision after giving an

opportunity to the employer to cite additional evidence as well as to the respondent no. 1 to lead contrary evidence.

This Tribunal has been further directed to take a decision on the dispute referred to it for adjudication on the basis of

the evidence adduced by the parties in terms of the order and without being influenced by the fact that the Award has

been set aside directing reinstatement with consequential and monetary benefits. The entire exercise was required to

be completed within a period of six months from communication of the order. The order of the Hon’ble High Court

passed by the Division Bench was communicated to this Tribunal on 12.07.2022, when the Tribunal was lying vacant.

Opportunity was given to the management to adduce evidence in support of their case and Mr. Anuj Lakra

398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was examined on 21.09.2022 and 16.12.2022 as Management witness – 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief and produced

some documents as follows :

(i) Photocopy of the letter dated 04/05.07.1994 issued by the Dy. Personnel Manager, Girmint Colliery

addressed to the Agent of Girmint (R) Colliery informing that Gouri Nath Banerjee was not in the roll of

Ajoy-II Colliery (document is marked as Exhibit M-1).

(ii) Photocopy of the purported LPC dated 09.04.1984 on the basis of which Gouri Nath Banerjee joined

Nakrakonda Colliery (document is marked as Exhibit M-2).

(iii) Photocopy of the letter issued by the General Manager (Personnel), Head Quarters, ECL dated 08.02.1995

addressed to the Personnel Manager of Jhanjra Area informing that no letter bearing No. ECL/CMD/C-

6B(R)/84/1129 dated 17.02.1984 regarding transfer of Gouri Nath Banerjee has been issued from the HQ,

ECL (document is marked as Exhibit M-3).

(iv) Photocopy of the letter issued by the Regional Commissioner- I (SG), CMPF dated 03.12.2018 addressed to

General Manager of Bankola Area informing that Gouri Nath Banerjee was allotted with different Provident

Fund number at Ajoy-II Colliery (document is marked as Exhibit M-4).

(v) Photocopy of the Members’ Account Ledger of CMPF (document is marked as Exhibit M-5).

10.

The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the workman. In paragraph – (10) of his affidavit-in-chief the

MW–1 stated that the Regional Commissioner- I (SG) has confirmed that BKR/4/348 is the CMPF account number of

Gouri Nath Banerjee but his Form-H is not available at CMPF Office. In course of cross-examination the

Management Witness deposed that Gouri Nath Banerjee worked at Nakrakonda Colliery from 1984 to 1994, till his

dismissal. It transpires from the evidence of MW-1 that an anonymous complaint was made against the workman in

the year 1994 and not through any official authority. On 16.12.2022 the witness in his further cross-examination

deposed that Gouri Nath Banerjee was never appointed under the company and no transfer order could be found at

Nakrakonda Colliery. He could not state if Gouri Nath Banerjee himself produced any Transfer order from Ajoy-II

colliery. Furthermore, no verification of such Transfer Order was done by the management to find out if it was

genuine or not. MW-1 deposed that no Service Book of Gouri Nath Banerjee was transmitted to Nakrakonda colliery

on his purported transfer and his Service Book was prepared for the first time at Nakrakonda Colliery. It is

noteworthy that even at this stage the management witness did not produce the Service Book of Gouri Nath Banerjee

from Nakrakonda Colliery to prove on what basis it was prepared. Witness deposed that he could not state on what

basis the entries were made at Nakrakonda Colliery. The witness in cross-examination disclosed that the normal rule

is that when a person is transferred from one Area to another Area, a Transfer Order is issued and copy of the same is

communicated to the Area which he is supposed to join. In a normal case Transfer Order should reach Bankola Area

where Nakrakonda Colliery is situated. At the time of joining no such query was made from the Colliery to the Area

Office. MW-1 identified a letter dated 05.08.1994 produced by the workman as Exhibit W-21, issued by the Dy.

CME/Agent, Nakrakonda Colliery requesting the Dy. CPM, Bankola Area to verify whether Gouri Nath Banerjee was

transferred from Ajoy-II Colliery under Sripur Area to Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area, and to send the

connected papers regarding such transfer for necessary action. The witness deposed that the Dy. CPM, Bankola Area

in his reply dated 25/26.08.1994 (Exhibit W-22) informed that the Transfer record of Gouri Nath Banerjee was not

traceable in their office which was confirmed by the dealing clerk of the office. The witness could not state the date of

joining of the delinquent at Nakrakonda Colliery. He admitted that he has not verified the Last Pay Certificate and the

Transfer Order of Gouri Nath Banerjee, nor could he disclose the name of the person who permitted Gouri Nath

Banerjee to work at Nakrakonda Colliery on the basis of the purported Transfer Order. It is gathered from the cross-

examination of the management witness that no complaint was made before the Police against Gouri Nath Banerjee

after revelation of the alleged fraudulent act of joining service of ECL on the basis of forged documents. The witness

deposed that the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell of ECL. However, the Vigilance Report has not been

placed before the Tribunal nor any Transfer Order or LPC. The witness admitted that in the ledger maintained by the

CMPF the date of appointment of Gouri Nath Banerjee at Ajoy-II Colliery appears as 22.03.1982 and the copy of the

same has been marked as Exhibit M-5. The witness admitted that according to the letter of the Regional

Commissioner- I (SG) dated 03.12.2018 (Exhibit M-4), as per Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery (BKR/4) CMPF

account no. BKR/4/348 was allotted to Gouri Nath Banerjee, son of Radhanath Banerjee. So far as LPC is concerned

the witness deposed that the same bears the signature of the issuing authority of Ajoy-II Colliery (Exhibit M-2). The

management witness deposed that when a person comes on transfer from any other colliery, general practice is that

LPC and Transfer Order are checked and verified at the place of his transfer before release of its salary and he

admitted that CMPF account number appeared in the purported LPC (Exhibit M-2) produced by the management is

not the CMPF account of Gouri Nath Banerjee.

11. Opportunity was granted to the workman to lead contrary evidence. On earlier occasion the workman had

produced some documents as follows:

(i)

Photocopy of the Chargesheet NKR/PER/94-95/1184 dated 15.07.1994, identified as Ext-W1.

(ii)

Photocopy of the written reply by the workman to the Dy. CME/Agent of Nakrakonda Colliery dated

22.07.1994, identified as Ext-W2.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

399

(iii)

Photocopy of the Chargesheet NKR/PER/94-95/1904 dated 01.10.1994, identified as Ext-W 3.

(iv)

Photocopy of the written reply by the workman to the Agent of Nakrakonda Colliery dated 04.10.1994,

identified as Ext-W 4.

(v) Photocopy of the written reply of the workman to the Enquiry Officer dated 04.10.1994, identified as

Ext-W 5.

(vi) Photocopy of the Dismissal Order dated 23.01.1996, identified as Ext-W6.

(vii) Photocopy of the Appel against the Dismissal Order dated 02.02.1996, identified as Ext-W7.

(viii)

Photocopy of the letter of the Agent, Nakrakonda Colliery issued to the Agent of Ajoy-II Colliery dated

07.06.1994, identified as Ext-W8.

(ix) Photocopy of the letter of Dy. Personnel Manager, Girmint Colliery issued to the Agent Girmint (R)

Colliery dated 04/05.07.1994, identified as Ext-W9.

(x) Photocopy of the letter by the General Manager (Personnel) issued to the Personnel Manager, Jhanjra

Area dated 08.02.1995, identified as Ext-W10.

(xi) Photocopy of the LPC /Service Particulars of Gouri Nath Banerjee, identified as Ext-W11.

(xii)

Photocopy of the letter of the Manager, Ajoy-II Colliery issued to the Project Officer, Nakrakonda

Colliery dated 11.04.1984, identified as Ext-W12.

(xiii)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 29.02.1984/01.03.1984, identified as Ext-W13.

(xiv)

Photocopy of the Identity Card, identified as Ext-W14.

(xv)

Photocopy of the letter of Dy. CME/Agent, Nakrakonda Colliery issued to the Dy. CPM, Bankola

Area dated 05.08.1994, identified as Ext-W15.

(xvi)

Photocopy of the letter of Dy. CPM, Bankola Area issued to the Dy. CME/Agent, Nakrakonda

Colliery dated 25/26.08.1994, identified as Ext-W16.

(xvii)

Photocopy of the Pay Sheet of CMPF Account of Gouri Nath Banerjee, identified as Ext-W17.

(xviii)

Photocopy of the Transfer Certificate of Gouri Nath Banerjee, identified as Ext-W18.

(xix)

Photocopy of the Gram Panchayat Certificate dated 26.07.1994, identified as Ext-19

(xx)

Photocopy of the Court’s Order dated 09.09.1994, identified as Ext-W20.

12.

An affidavit-in-chief has been filed by Gouri Nath Banerjee on 21.02.2023 and he was cross-examined at

length on behalf of the management of ECL. Further documents produced by the workman are as follows:

(xxi)

Photocopy of the letter of the Dy. CME/Agent, Nakrakonda Colliery addressed to the Dy. CPM,

Bankola Area dated 05.08.1994, marked as Exhibit W-21 (same as Ext-W15).

(xxii)

Photocopy of the reply of the Dy. CPM, Bankola Area to the Dy. CME/Agent, Nakrakonda Colliery

dated 25/26.08.1994, marked as Exhibit W-22 (same as Ext-W16).

(xxiii)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 29.02.1984 / 01.03.1984, marked as Exhibit W-23.

(xxiv)

Photocopy of the Identity Card of Gouri Nath Banerjee, marked as Exhibit W-24 (same as Ext-W14).

(xxv)

Photocopy of the Pay Slip of Gouri Nath Banerjee issued from Nakrakonda Colliery, marked as

Exhibit W-25.

(xxvi)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 07/09.03.1989, marked as Exhibit W-26.

(xxvii)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 16/24.01.1994, marked as Exhibit W-27.

(xxviii)

Photocopy of the CMPF Pass Book bearing name and account number of the employee, marked as

Exhibit W-28.

(xxix)

Photocopy of the General Diary dated 27.07.1994 lodged at Barjora Police Station, marked as Exhibit

W-29.

(xxx)

Photocopy of the First Charge Sheet dated 15.07.1994, marked as Exhibit W-30 (same as Ext-W1).

(xxxi)

Photocopy of the Second Charge Sheet dated 01.10.1994, marked as Exhibit W-31(same as Ext-W3).

(xxxii)

Photocopy of the Enquiry Report dated 11.12.1995, marked as Exhibit W-32.

(xxxiii)

Photocopy of the letter dated 23.01.1996 communicating dismissal of Gouri Nath Banerjee, marked as

Exhibit W-33.

400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, learned advocate for the charged employee argued that Gouri Nath Banerjee was a

permanent employee of ECL and initially joined at Ajoy-II Colliery under Sripur Area on 22.03.1982 and was allotted

a CMPF Account No. BKR/4/348. He was subsequently transferred to Bankola Area on the basis of Office Order

dated 29.02.1984/01.03.1984 and on 02.03.1984 he was posted as a Fiter Helper at Nakrakonda Colliery. At that time

of transfer he was asked to deposit his Identity Card of Ajoy-II Colliery to get a New Identity Card at Nakrakonda

Colliery. During his posting at Nakrakonda Colliery the workman was granted two promotions to upper grade on

07.03.1989 and 16/24.01.1994. During his service at Ajoy-II Colliery he received his Service Record Excerpt, which

he lost for which a General Diary bearing No. 748 dated 27.07.1994 (Exhibit W-29) was lodged at Barjora Police

Station. Learned advocate argued that the management has not produced the anonymous complaint, on the basis of

which this vicious proceeding was initiated against the petitioner workman. The Vigilance Report after the enquiry

has not been produced to establish that there was any misconduct on the part of the workman. Learned advocate of the

charged employee urged that at the time of transfer of any workman from one office to another office of employer’s

establishment, an order of transfer, a Last Pay Certificate and an order of release were issued and the same were

communicated to the place of transfer officially. At the time of joining the place of transfer, the transferee office

verifies all such documents and thereafter permits the workman to join. Admittedly Gouri Nath Banerjee joined

Nakrakonda Colliery and in course of his ten (10) years in service, until his suspension he was promoted on two

occasions. It is emphatically argued that the documents filed by the management (Exhibit M-4 and M-5) would

reveal that the office of the Regional Commissioner- I (SG), CMPF in their letter dated 03.12.2018 informed the

General Manager, Bankola Area that as per report received from custodian official and the Allotment Register of

Ajoy-II Colliery (BKR/4), Gouri Nath Banerjee, son of Radhanath Banerjee was allotted CMPF Account No.

BKR/4/348. Both these documents have been filed by the management which reveal that according to the Allotment

Allotment Register reveals that his date of joining was 22.03.1982. Mr. Goswami argued that the documents filed by

the management supports the case of the workman that he was in the service of the company since his appointment at

Ajoy-II Colliery and the Management witness miserably failed to discharge their onus of proving the charge by

leading evidence. It is urged that the order of dismissal of Gouri Nath Banerjee from service is illegal and arbitrary,

the same is required to be set aside and considering the fact that the employee has already attained his age of

superannuation and there is no scope for his reinstatement, the management should pay the back wages and all

consequential benefits.

14. In reply Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the charged employee

participated in the Domestic Enquiry held against him but he could not prove that he was appointed at Ajoy-II

Colliery at any point of time or that he was transferred to Nakrakonda Colliery by any order of the management. It is

contended that the charge of misconduct through fraud has been well established against the delinquent and the order

of dismissal passed against him is appropriate, just and proper and does not require any interference.

15. In the earlier Award of the Tribunal dated 10.03.2010 it was held that action of Nakrakonda Colliery in

dismissing the workman Gouri Nath Banerjee w.e.f. 23.01.1996 was not legal and justified. The Hon’ble Division

bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT NO. 1375 of 2018 held that the finding of the Tribunal in so far as the

validity of the domestic enquiry is concerned should be tread to be a finding on the preliminary issue and it has been

made clear that such findings is not to be interfered with by this court. However, as the Tribunal did not afford any

opportunity to ECL to prove the charges on merit by adducing evidence in spite of a specific prayer made in the

pleadings, the Hon’ble Court was of the considered view that the part of the Award dated 10.03.2010 declaring the

dismissal to be illegal and unjustified and the consequential direction for reinstatement in service with back wages

and all consequential benefits and monetary benefits are required to be set aside and thereby allowed the appeal.

16. On a conspectus of evidence adduced by the Management witness (MW-1), it appears that he is not acquainted

with the fact of the case. In cross-examination he admitted that management could not find any Transfer order of

Gouri Nath Banerjee at Nakrakonda Colliery and he could not state, if any such Transfer order was issued by Ajoy-II

Colliery. The Witness further deposed that no verification of such Transfer order was done by the management to find

out if it was genuine or not. It is undisputed that Gouri Nath Banerjee worked at Nakrakonda Colliery from 1984 to

1994, till his dismissal. It is abundantly clear from the admission of MW-1 that the Transfer order and the LPC which

are the vital documents on the basis of which the delinquent joined Nakrakonda Colliery have not produced by ECL,

the custodian of records and no verification of such documents were made to ascertain whether they were fake or

genuine. Furthermore, a letter issued by Dy. Chief Personnel Manager of Bankola Area to the Dy. CME/Agent,

Nakrakonda Colliery dated 25/26.08.1994 (Exhibit W-22), reveals that the Transfer file of Gouri Nath Banerjee was

not traceable in his office. Therefore, the management has not been able to prove that the documents related to

transfer of Gouri Nath Banerjee are fake. On a close examination of the contents of the letter dated

04/05.07.1994 (Exhibit M-1) issued by the Dy. Personnel Manager, Girmint (R) Colliery, it appears that after

enquiry it was communicated that “there is no such person by name of Sri Gourinath Banerjee working at Ajoy-II

Colliery. Also, no such name is available in B.Form register.” The management of ECL thereafter produced Exhibit

M-4, a letter dated 03.12.2018, issued by the Regional Commissioner-I (SG), CMPF, which demolishes the

management’s own case that Gouri Nath Banerjee did not work at Ajoy-II Colliery. It transpires from the

communication made to the General Manager, Bankola Area that as per the Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery Sri

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

401

Gouri Nath Banerjee, S/o- Radhanath Banerjee was allotted CMPF Account No. BKR/4/348. There is nothing to

disbelieve Exhibit M-4 and Exhibit M-5, which originate from an independent source, the Coal Mines Provident Fund

authority, over which the charged employee has no control or influence. The unescapable conclusion therefore is that

the employer failed to discharge their onus of proving the charge of misconduct by fraud against Gouri Nath Banerjee

under Clause 17(i)(a), 17(i)(o), and 17(i)(u) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the management.

17. Admittedly the charged employee was a permanent employee at Nakrakonda Colliery from 1984 till his order of

suspension on 01.10.1994. From Exhibit W-26 it appears that by Order dated 07/09.03.1989 the workman was

promoted from the post of Fitter Helper at Nakrakonda Colliery to the post of Fitter in Category-IV. After five (5)

years he was again promoted from the post of Fitter in Category-IV to the post of Fitter in Category-V by order dated

16/24.01.1994 (Exhibit W-27). No objection was raised by the management at the time of admitting the documents in

evidence nor any suitable explanation has been provided as to how after verification of all records such promotions

could have been granted to such employee if his entry in the service is illegal and based on fabricated documents. The

management has produced a copy of letter from the Regional Commissioner- I (SG), CMPF dated 03.12.2018

(Exhibit M-4) wherein it is stated that the CMPF account number of Gouri Nath Banerjee is BKR/4/348 as per

Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery. In the relevant page of Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery the date of

appointment of Gouri Nath Banerjee was recorded as 22.03.1982. The management of the company by producing the

document has accepted the fact that on the basis of Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery CMPF account number

was allotted to the charged employee. The management of ECL could not explain how the name of the charged

workman appeared in the Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery.

18. In the instant case Gouri Nath Banerjee failed to produce any document in his favour or in support of his claim

that he was initially appointed at Ajoy-II Colliery under Sripur Area. It is strange to find that only after issuance of the

Charge Sheet against him on 15.07.1994 (Exhibit W-30) to the effect that he never worked at Ajoy-II Colliery at any

point of time and fraudulently fabricated or caused to be fabricated some documents and papers, to show that he has

been transferred from Ajoy-II Colliery, the workman lodged a General Diary bearing No. 748 dated 27.07.1994 at

Barjora Police Station claiming that on 25.07.1994 while he was proceeding from his house for his duty at the

Colliery all his Service Records, LPC and other documents of Ajoy-II Colliery got lost in a bus. Apparently, to escape

the onus of discharging his burden of proof, the charged employee took a plea that his documents were lost. It is

natural and prudent that after such a charge levelled against him, he would carefully maintain custody of his

documents which would help to support his claim of service. In the present case the delinquent has endeavored to

justify non-production of documents by lodging a General Diary with Police that his documents were lost in a bus.

19. The other part of the story is that the management of Nakrakonda Colliery of ECL miserably failed to discharge

their burden of proof by not producing the Transfer file containing the order of transfer, LPC and release order of the

workman. The purported LPC issued to Gouri Nath Banerjee has been produced as Exhibit M-2. No document has

been produced to show as to what steps the management have taken to identify the person who issued the documents

and specifically those who acted upon it by allowing Gouri Nath Banerjee to join at Nakrakonda Colliery and paid

wages on the basis of such LPC. The CMPF account number of the charged employee which appears from Exhibit M-

4 is the only reliable document which establishes the relationship of Gouri Nath Banerjee with Ajoy-II Colliery as the

CMPF account number was allotted on the basis of the Allotment Register forwarded by Ajoy-II Colliery to the

Office of the Regional Commissioner- I (SG), CMPF, Region-1.

20. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances I hold that amidst non-availability of several important missing links

and material relating to appointment of Gouri Nath Banerjee at Ajoy-II Colliery under Sripur Area, the transfer order,

LPC, and release order by which he joined at Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area, the only sustainable evidence

which surfaced in favour of the charged employee is his CMPF Account Ledger bearing his CMPF account number,

issued on the basis of the Allotment Register of Ajoy-II Colliery (Exhibit M-5). Weighing the evidence on record, the

balance tilts in favour of the workman who has admittedly served the company for ten years at Nakrakonda Colliery,

where he was granted two promotions and also has a CMPF account. The evidence adduced on behalf of the

management could not dislodge the material in support of the workman. The denial of the management simpliciter

that the workman never worker at Ajoy-II Colliery does not help them to establish the charge. Accordingly, I hold

that the charge levelled against the workman in Charge Sheets dated 01.10.1994 could not be established against him.

The Enquiry Report and Second Show Cause Notice were not served upon the workman in compliance with the

principle laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others

vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471] and the Circular of Coal India Ltd. bearing No. CIL C-

5A(VI)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994. The order of dismissal dated 23.01.1996 (Exhibit W-33) passed by the Chief

General Manager of Bankola Area against Gouri Nath Banerjee is not sustainable under the law and the same is set

aside.

21. The workman having superannuated from service during pendency of the Reference case, it is found appropriate

to direct the management of Nakrakonda Colliery of ECL that Gouri Nath Banerjee be treated to be in service from

the date of his dismissal i.e. 23.01.1996. He shall be entitled to his back wages along with consequential benefits. The

management of the company shall disburse his dues within six (6) months from the date of Notification.

Hence,

402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the workman against the management on contest. The

dismissal of Gouri Nath Banerjee from his service by order dated 23.01.1996 is set aside. He shall be treated to be in

service w.e.f. the date of his dismissal till the date of his normal superannuation. He shall be entitled to his back

wages for the said period along with consequential benefits. The management of the company shall disburse his dues

within six (6) months from the date of Notification. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 171.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 34 /2012) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/169/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2024

S.O. 171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 34/2012) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/169/2012– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 34 OF 2012

PARTIES:

Paresh Bouri

Vs.

Management of Begunia Project of BCCL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. S. K. Singh, Area Secretary, Janta Mazdoor Sangh.

For the Management of BCCL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.11.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/169/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 12.09.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Begunia Project under Chanch Victoria Area – XII of Bharat Coking Coal

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Begunia Project of M/s B.C.C.Ltd to dismiss from service to

Sri Paresh Bouri on ground of only absenteeism is fair and justified? To what relief the management can

provide to him? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/169/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 12.09.2012 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 34 of 2012 was registered on

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

403

25.09.2012 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Bharat Coking Coal Limited is present. For the ends of

justice, the case is fixed up today for evidence of workman witness, Paresh Bouri. On repeated calls at 12.05 pm none

appeared for Paresh Bouri. Union representative has not taken any step. On previous occasion i.e. 07.06.2023

workman had appeared after Notice but he is found absent today without steps.

3. I find that the dismissed workman is disinclined to pursue the case and is unable to adduce evidence even after a

passage of eleven years. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 172.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa 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;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 01 /2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/140/2013-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2024

S.O. 172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 01/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/140/2013– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 01 OF 2014

PARTIES: Late Mangla Majhi

(Represented by the legal heirs, Smt. Kisku Buri and 3 others).

Vs.

Management of Ghusick Unit of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

06.11.2023

404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/140/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 09.12.2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Ghusick Unit of Kalipahari (R) Colliery under Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management not to pay the back wages to workman Shri Mangal Majhi, Surface

Trammer from 8.9.1997 to 26.9.2010 for forced idle period, while Management has re-instated him in

service without paying back wages is fair and justified, if not so what relief Management can provide to

him? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/140/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 09.12.2013 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 01 of 2014 was registered on

14.02.2014 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited is

present.

3. The Industrial Dispute has been raised by Mangla Majhi, Surface Trammer for his back wages during forced idle

period from 08.09.1997 to 26.09.2010. During pendency of the Industrial Dispute Mangla Majhi expired and his legal

heirs were substituted in this case on the basis of a petition filed on 17.05.2017. Smt. Kisku Buri, wife of Late

Mangla Majhi filed an affidavit-in-chief through her advocate but did not turn up to face cross-examination. Due to

non-appearance of the legal heirs on several consecutive dates Notice under registered post was issued to all the legal

heirs in compliance with order dated 06.06.2023, directing them to appear before the Tribunal today. The Notice

under registered post have not been returned. It is presumed that the same have been served upon the addressees. On

repeated calls at 12.40 pm none appeared for the legal heirs of the deceased workman. Till date no evidence has been

adduced.

4. Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor Congress appeared on behalf of the workman. He filed

written statement on behalf of the workman on 16.06.2015. On 11.07.2017 a substitution petition filed by the legal

heirs of Late Mangla Majhi was allowed. On 12.09.2018 Mr. G. P. Mal, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the

legal representatives. The management is represented by Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate who filed written statement

on 07.09.2015.

5. Several opportunities have been provided to the workman to contest the case and adduce evidence. It appears

from the record that after Notice the legal heirs have not turned up. Under such circumstances the case pending for ten

years is dismissed for default. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 173.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj नेिनल उड्डयन कंपनी ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण, पटना ds iapkV (सन्िभा केस नंबर 11© का 2009) dks izdkf”kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la -,y-11012/38/2009-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2024

S.O. 173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.Case.No. 11© of 2009) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

405

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of National Aviation Co. of India Ltd.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-11012/38/2009– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:-11 (C) of 2009

Between the management of (1) The General Manager (Commercial) Eastern Region, National Aviation

Co. of India Ltd, Airlines House, 39- Chitranjan Avenue, Kolkata (W.B) (2) National Aviation Company of

India Ltd., ( The Indian Airlines Ltd.) South Maidan, Patna (Bihar) and Their workman Sri Mandeo Rai,

S/O- Late Surajdeo Rai, At parivahan Bhawan, PS- Kotwali, PO- GPO, Patna (Bihar)

For the management:-

Sri R.N. Majumdar, Advocate

no.-(1) & (ii)

Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the workman:-

Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate

Sri Sarvan Kumar, Advocate

Sri Satyendra Kumar, Advocate.

Present:- Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated- 26^th July, 2023

By the adjudication order no.- L-11012/38/2009-IR( CM-I ) New Delhi, dated- 14.12.2009 the Govt. of India

Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the management of (1) The

General Manager (Commercial) Eastern Region, National Aviation Co. of India Ltd, Airlines House, 39- Chitranjan

Avenue, Kolkata (W.B) (2) National Aviation Company of India Ltd., ( The Indian Airlines Ltd.) South Maidan, Patna

(Bihar) and Their workman Sri Mandeo Rai, S/O- Late Surajdeo Rai, At parivahan Bhawan, PS- Kotwali, PO- GPO,

Patna (Bihar) for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial tribunal – cum- Labour Court No-1 Dhanbad-1.

SCHEDULE

(i)“Whether the action of the management of National Aviation Company of India Limited ( erstwhile

Indian Airlines Limited ) in removing Shri Mandeo Rai, Cabin Crew from the services w.e.f. 27.04.2005 is

justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the workmen concerned entitled?”

2. It is pertinent to not here that this reference by the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court was directed to refer

before this tribunal but inadvertently while referring the disputes to this tribunal the Ministry of Labour issued the

vide reference notification no.- L-11012/38/2009-IR(CM-I) New Delhi, dt- 14.12.2009 stating therein Central

Government Industrial tribunal – cum- Labour Court No-1 Dhanbad-1 however the reference was sent to this tribunal

as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Upon detection of this facts this tribunal sent letter to the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C) Maurya Lok Complex, Block-A, 2^nd Floor, Room No.- 6,16,& 17 vide its letter dt- 28.11.2022 for

issuance the corrigendum accordingly Ministry of Labour and Employment / Shram Mantralaya, Govt. of India,

Bharat Sarkar, New Delhi, dt- 13.01.2023sent a corrigendum in the light of aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble Court,

that is:-

“Reference is invited to this Ministry’s order dt- 14.12.2009 issued by this ministry vide file no.- L-11012/38/2009-IR

(CM-1) for adjudication of Industrial dispute between the management of National Aviation Company of India Ltd.

and the workman Shri Mandeo Rai, Cabin Crew.

In this regard, the 3^rd line of para 3 of order dt-14.12.2009, the words “ Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1 Dhanbad-1” shall be read as follows: “ The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patna Bihar.” And in 5^th para

of the said order, the words “ Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1” shall be read as follows:

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Niyojan Bhawan, 6^th Floor, B-block, Near Income Tax Golamber, Baily Road,

Patna.

3. As per the statement of claim of the workman, the case of the workman is that the workman ( Mandeo Rai ) was

initially appointed as Helper (C) in the year 1987 and he was assigned employment no.- 459593 in the Indian Airlines

406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Limited, Patna. He was posted at Patna and prior to impugned removal order, he was working on the post of senior

helper (C). It is further asserted that on 31.10.2002 while attending his duties the workman was misbehaved and

abused by Mr. Sujet Kumar Roy and Mr. Shekhar Das, the traffic superintends. On this episode. the workman made

complaint to the station manager as well as to the Airport Manager on 31.10.2002 itself. It is further asserted that on

the same date vide reference no.- PAT/118-9-501 dt-31.10.2002 the workman was put under suspension prior to any

show cause dated 19.02.2003. It is further asserted that workman filed representation with a request to revoke

suspension but went invain. It is further asserted that he received a memo of charges vide reference no.-344 dt-

17.02.2002. The applicant ( workman ) filed detailed reply on 02.03.2003 denying the allegation and pointing out

discrepancies between the memo of charges and the order of suspension. It is further asserted that the workman filed

CWJC No.- 3373 of 2004 against the order of suspension and also for a direction to pay him 75% to 95% subsistence

allowance but even after the order passed by the G.M ( Commercial ), ( Indian Airlines Ltd.) vide letter no.-2734 dt-

26.05.2003 recommended to the F.M ( Finance ) Kolkata for payment of subsistence allowance from the period

29.01.2003 to a tune of 3/4^th of the basic wages, dearness allowance and other compensatory allowance but inspite of

that applicant was paid only 50% of the basic wages as subsistence allowances. It is further asserted that vide

reference no.- 394 dt- 26.10.2004 / 01.11.2004 2^nd show cause notice was issued by the G.M ( Commercial ) against

the order proposed punishment of immediate removal from the service of the company, accordingly workman filed his

reply to the 2^nd show cause on 30.11.2004. In the mean time his writ application was disposed of by the Hon’ble High

Court, Patna on 11.04.2005 with a direction to conclude the departmental proceeding within the period of six weeks

from the date of receipt / production of copy of the order. Finally disciplinary authority passed the order of removal

from the services of the company on 27.04.2005 and it was directed that the workman would not be entitled to

anything, except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. It is further asserted that the applicant (

workman ) filed an appeal before the Regional Director on 11.05.2005 but it was also rejected vide reference no.- 802

dt- 11.06.2005. It is further asserted that applicant again moved before the Hon’ble High Court vide CWJC No.- 7965

of 2005 in which the Hon’ble High Court passed an order on dt-11.07.2008 with direction to the applicant ( workman )

to move before the conciliation officer under the I.D. Act for seeking conciliation of the dispute with the employer and

in the event of failure report from the conciliation officer, dispute be referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Patna. It is

further asserted that the after appointment applicant performed and discharged his duties to the satisfaction of all

concerned and there was no complaint against the applicant. It is further asserted that his complaint dt- 31.10.2002

against Mr. Sujit Kumar Roy and Shekhar Das was not considered rather in the collusion of the two Sujit Kumar Roy

and Shekhar Das, authorities suspended the workman on 31.10.2002 without asking any show cause. It is further

asserted that the applicant filed a complaint case against Mr. Sujit Kumar Roy (T.S )vide complaint case no.-2325 of

2002 and another complaint case no.- 2324 of 2002 against Sri R. Prasad, Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Patna in

which the learned court took cognizance on 13.01.2003. It is further asserted that there is discrepancies between the

order of suspension dt-31.10.2002 and memo of charges dt- 15/18.11.2002 it shows initially only allegation against

then applicant was of assault misbehaviour and threating Mr. Sujit Kumar Roy while the memo of charge sheet

contained of new charges which demonstrate the malafide contention of the management side. It is further asserted

that applicant was informed by the enquiry officer vide reference no.-129 dt- 20.03.2003 enquiry of charges will be

held on 04.04.2003 at 13.30Hrs( 1.30P.M) in the office of the Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Patna. On that day

management side examined witness P.K. Sinha on 05.04.2003, management witness one Mr. Pramod Bhaiyan and

thereafter on 05.06.2005 management examined Mr. R. Prasad but workman was not afforded any opportunity to

cross-examine these witnesses and enquiry officer deliberately made and entry of proceeding book that the applicant

did not wish to cross-examine, that could learn by the applicant only after obtaining the copies of proceeding. It is

further asserted that applicant could not participated in the enquiry on 06.06.2003 and 12.06.2003 due to illness and

this facts was communicated to the G.M ( Commercial ) Indian Airlines, Kalkatta vide letter dt-06.06.2003 and to the

Station Manager, Indian Airlines, Patna dt-11.06.2003. The applicant has mentioned in his application dt-06.06.2003

that enquiry officer was almost holding the proceedings ex-parte and pressuring him to withdraw the complaint case

filed against S.K.Roy and R. Prasad. It is further asserted that next date of enquiry fixed on 28.11.2003 but

unfortunately the applicant again became ill on 17.11.2003 and got himself treated at the government hospital and the

prescription was produced before the Station Manager on 17.11.2003 but inspite of prior information to the enquiry

officer along with prescription of Govt. Doctor, the enquiry officer hold the enquiry ex-parte and recorded the

statement of management witness Mr. S.K. Singh and B.S Patwal on 20.11.2003. It is further asserted that enquiry

officer vide letter dt- 20.11.2003 informed the applicant ex-parte enquiry has been held on 18.11.2003 and 19.11.2003

and the date of further enquiry is on dt-02.12.2003. It is further asserted that on 22.11.2003 applicant was informed by

the enquiry officer that date of enquiry was post-pond on 02.12.2003 due to indisposition of enquiry officer. It is

further asserted that applicant filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court at this stage vide CWJC No.- 3373 of

2004 against order of suspension and for payment of 75% subsistence allowance as well as for the replacement of

enquiry officer and to hold a fresh departmental proceeding but the departmental proceeding proceeded. It is further

asserted that G.M (Commercial) vide letter no.- 4852 dt- 26.08.2004 forwarded the enquiry officer and commitment to

the applicant and the applicant filed his reply on 12.09.2004 stating in the details and the manner of enquiry officer has

he was deprived the principles of natural justice. It is further asserted that till date Indian Airlines has not taken

confirmation from the concerned authority / tribunal under section-33-2(B) of the Industrial Dispute.It is further

asserted that the case of the petitioner was not examined and appriciated in a proper manner by the enquiry officer and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

407

there upon on the basis incorrected findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority passed a perverse order

of dismissal. The impugned order are illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly the

workman filed his statement of claim with a prayer to quash the order dt- 27.04.2005 whereby and wherein applicant /

workman has been punished with the punishment from the removal from service of the company and further directed

applicant could not been entitled for salary during the suspension period except subsistence allowance and also with

prayer of quash the order dt-11.06.2005 passed by Regional Director (East )the applicant further seek relief for making

direction to the management for payment of entire dues amounts as well as to reinstate to applicant /workman in

service with all consequential benefits.

On the other hand the management side filed written statement on 28.07.2010 stating therein workman is not

entitled to any relief whatever he stated in statement of claim, as the workmans claim is bad in law as well as on facts.

It is further asserted that the workman Sri Mandeo Rai was suspended on 31.10.2002 vide letter no.- PAT/18-9/501

issued by then Station Manager, Patna of the employers company for charges of allegation of abusing and attempting

to assault Sri Sujit Kumar Roy, Traffic Superintendent, while on duty at Patna Airport on 31.10.2002 and

subsequently charge sheet was served upon the workman stating therein you were on duty on 31.10.2002 at Patna

Airport and during lunch time you have misbehaved with the canteen contractor Airport Staff Canteen in front of other

staff and customers. When the Shekhar Das, Traffic Superintendent intervened in the matter, you shouted at Shri Das

and abused him with filthy language. Thereafter at around 2.05PM when Sujit Kumar Roy, Traffic Superintendent was

proceeding to the tarmac to attend the flight IC-809 which was taxing in to park at the designated parking bay you

went to him and started abusing him with filthy languages and in the process, picked up an iron rod and chased Sri

Roy and tried to assault to him. Fortunately you were caught hold by one of the CISF Officials, this incident was

witness other IAL officials, CISF personnel including AAI Airport Director, At around 5.00 P.M ( 1700 hours ) you

went to again Sri Roy and threatened him entire consequences. It is further asserted that therein you above act, if

proved, will tantamount to breach of standing order I and misconduct within the meaning of standing order 16(11),

16(13), 16(35), 16(40) and 16(42) of the IAL standing. The management sent a letter along with charge to the

workman with direction to furnish reply within seven days of receipt of this letter but the registered letter return back

with endorsement of refused. Thereafter, G.M (Commercial) Kolkatta appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the

charges levelled against the workman in respect of charge sheet dt- 15/18^th November,2002. Sri J.C. Suri the then

Senior Manager, ( Personnel ) Northern Region, Delhi was appointed as a enquiry officer and G.P.Gupta, the then

Assistant Manager( Rajbhasha) Kolkatta as Presenting Officer. It is further asserted that the enquiry officer vide notice

dt- 27^th March,2003 posted at enquiry to 4^th April,2003 accordingly enquiry was held on 4^th April,2003 and 5^th

April,2003 where the workman participated and availed the assistance of a “friend”. The next date of enquiry was

fixed for 20^th March,2003 wrongly mentioned but the workman did not turn-up and did not give any information to the

enquiry officer. Then the enquiry was adjourned and the next date was fixed on 5^th June,2003. On that day workman

participated in the enquiry thereafter workman did not turn-up on 06.06.2003 and 12^th June,2003 due to self sickness.

It is further asserted that due to the retirement of the enquiry officer of the services of the employment companyand

the competent authority gave order to the enquiry to continue the enquiry proceeding. The next date of the enquiry was

fixed on 30^th October,2003 but the workman did not turn-up. It is further asserted that the enquiry was held ex-parte on

18.11.2003, 19.11.2003 and concluded on 11.03.2004 in which advance notice was given to the workman on each

occasion after the enquiry. It is further asserted that the proceedings of the concluding of the enquiry was sent to the

workman on 11^th March,2004 for furnishing his submission by 26^th March,2004 but the workman did not respond. It is

further asserted that enquiry officer submitted his report to General Manager ( Commercial )of the employer company

Kolkatta. Then G.M ( Commercial ) forwarded a copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the workman advising

him to furnish his comments on the findings of the enquiry officer. It is further asserted that on the demand of

workman Hindi translation of the findings of the enquiry officer was made available to the workman and subsequently

workman submitted his reply on 8^th October,2004. It is further asserted that the workman submitted his reply dt-30^th

November,2004 to the show cause notice. The competent authority after perusing the reply of the workman concerned

came to the conclusion that the charges proved against the workman concerned merited the punishment of removal

from service. Accordingly competent authority General Manager ( Commercial ) Kolkatta passed order dt- 27^th

April,2005 removing the workman from the services of employee of the employers of the company with immediate

effect along with a cheque of amount Rs. 12,152.00 ( Rs. Twelve Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two ) only being the

wages for one month as required under clause )b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

was sent to the workman. It is further asserted that the workman preferred an appeal against the order of punishment

dt- 27^th April,2005 before the Regional Director ( East ) but the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of

removal dt- 27^th April, 2005 vide his dt- 11^th June,2005. It is further asserted that the enquiry officer conducted a

proper and valid enquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice. It is further asserted that the claim of the

workman is totally false that management in collusion other concerned employees issued the suspension order as well

as removal the workman from the service as alleged, rather the order of removal was passed after holding a proper

departmental enquiry in which the workman was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend him. The management has

further denied this facts Mr. Sujit Kumar Roy and Mr Shekhar misbehaved with the workman on 31th October, 2002.

It is further asserted that subsistence allowance is paid to the workman in accordance with law. It is further asserted

that the workman participated in the enquiry proceedings till 5^th June, 2003 and thereafter he did not present before the

408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enquiry officer which prompted the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry ex-parte. The workman was given opportunity

to present in the enquiry proceeding and enquiry was adjourned on 6^th June,2003, 12^th June,2003 and 30^th

October,2003 and finally enquiry was held ex-parte when the workman was not present before the enquiry officer.

Workman deliberately without any rhyme and reason did not participate in the later part of the enquiry proceeding and

as such the enquiry was held ex-parte. It is further asserted that the impugned order as passed against the workman is

legal, just, following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. After filling the statement of claim by the workman and written statement filed by the management both sides

were directed to file list of witness and documents to adjudicate the fairness and propriety of domestic enquiry. This

records shows that even after knowing the proceeding of this case, management side became absent. Then this tribunal

initiate the proceeding ex-parte vide order dt- 19.11.2010. Subsequently workman side filed affidavited examination-

in-chief namely Mandeo Rai the workman himself, Ramchandra Ram and Naresh Kumar. Thereafter workman also

filed as many 10 documents on 30.12.2010 marked as Exts. as follows:-

Ext.-W/1 to -

Photo copy of Medicalprescription of Sri Mandeo Rai W/1-2.

Ext.-W/2-

Photo copy of management complainant / witness.

Ext.-W/3-

Photo copy of show cause, finding of the management dt- 27.04.2005 ( Letter

No.-418)

Ext.-W/4-

Photo copy of reply dt- 02.03.2003 filed by the workman.

Ext.-W/5-

Photo copy of complaint of workman.

Ext.-W/6-

Photo copy of letter no.-2734 dt-26.05.2003 enhancement

subsistence

allowance by the management.

Ext.-W/7-Photo copy of petition dt-06.06.2003 filed by the workman with request to changing the

enquiry officer.

Ext.-W/8-Photo copy of application dt- 11.06.2003 filed by the workman with request to extension

dated for enquiry.

Ext.-W/9-Photo copy of reply of management’s letter no.-394 dt-26 / 01.11.2004 submitted by the

workman.

10.

Ext.-W/10-Photo copy of appeal filed by the workman to the Regional Director, Indian Airlines.

6. And the tribunal allowed the affidavited examination-in-chief of the three witnesses filed by the workman sides.

The record show while the case was pending for argument stage. Management side again appeared before this tribunal

on 09.05.2011 and filed a petition for recalling the order of ex-parte proceeding that was allowed by this tribunal on

16.09.2011 imposing a cost of Rs. 1500/- ( Rs. One Thousand Five Hundred ) Only upon the management side.

Records shows management side produced one witness the enquiry officer Mr. J.C. Suri on 07.07.2015 and he was

cross-examined and discharged on 22.09.2015 thereafter on the request of management evidence was closed. After

hearing of both the sides on the preliminary issue of fairness of the propriety of the domestic enquiry. This tribunal

passed the order on 28.04.2016 holding the entire enquiry done by the enquiry officer is not fair and proper and at the

same time this tribunal gave direction the management has liberty to produce the documents and evidence in this

tribunal for final adjudication of the matter which will be decided without any prejudiced.

F INDINGS

7. Case record shows that even after knowing order of dt-28.04.2016 management side always took adjournment but

neither produced any documents, nor examined any witness as per the direction passed by this tribunal on 28.04.2016.

Record shows that management side has filed a petition on 06.09.2018 mentioning their in simultaneously one matter

is pending before the National Tribunal, Bombay, so proceeding of this case may kindly be stayed. On this application

this tribunal heard both the sides and rejected the management petition dt- 06.09.2018 on 22.01.19 the management

was again directed to produce the documents and evidence but from the very next date on 20.02.2019 management

became absent. When management did not appear before this tribunal after knowing the order of dt-22.01.2019, the

evidence of the management was got to be closed vide order dt- 24.06.2019 with direction to the workman side to

adduce evidence. On 24.12.2019 workman side filed list of witness and affidavited examination-in-chief of Mandeo

Rai of the workman and affidavited examination in chief of Ravi Nandan Paswan, Naresh Kumar Singh and Ram

Pravesh Paswan with xerox of the certified copy of proceeding of complain case no.-2324 of 2002 and proceeding of

complaint case no.- 2325 of 2002 filed against R. Prasad and Sujet Kumar Roy. In the mean time corona calamity

broke out for which the work of this tribunal was paralyzed due to national lock down.

Even after passing the corona period management side did not appear before this tribunal. When this tribunal

started functioning physically, that tribunal again issued registered notice to the management on 13.12.2021 but

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

409

management side did not turn-up and even the registered notice was not returned back to this tribunal i.e indication to

this fact the notice is well received by the management

side but did not trun-up to adduce any evidence, then workman side was directed to adduce evidence if so wishes.

9. Then workman side examined workman Mandeo Rai has W.W-1 and he was discharged, as management side did

not turn-up to cross-examine the witness Mandeo Rai. Record also shows that the workman Mandeo Rai has filed a

petition before this tribunal, he had filed the affidavited examination-in-chief of his witnesses namely Ravi Nandan

Rai Paswan, Naresh Kumar Singh and Ram Naresh Paswan on 24.12.2019. Out of them Ram Pravesh Paswan, Ravi

Nandan Kumar left the Patna and they are traceless and witness Naresh Kumar Singh is now no more hence the

workman side are not in position to examine these witness and his prayer is allowed. Then the evidence of workman

side got to be closed.

10 First of all this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of Mandeo Rai (W.W-1) who filed an affidavited examination-in-

chief in which he stated that he was posted as senior helper at Patna Airport and during his posting one Sujit Kumar

Roy was posted as a Traffic Assistant and R. Prasad was station manager. This witness further stated that station

manager used to pressurised him to do his personnel work at his residence but he refused to do. He also stated that the

station manager has asked Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand ) from him. It was also refused by him then the station

manager became annoyed with him. He further stated that Sujit Kumar Roy the Traffic Assistant was very closed to

the R. Prasad station manager and on the advise of R. Prasad, Sujit Kumar Roy started giving him duty hither and

thither and some times Sujit Kumar Roy had changed duty at last movement. This witness further stated that on

31.10.2002, at the instigation of station manager, Sujit Kumar Roy had filed a complaint against him alleging therein

he was threshed by him and on that very day station manager also called him and misbehaved and abused and

thereafter station manager served a suspension letter him. This witness further stated that the, fact is on 31.10.2002

Sujit Kumar Roy had assaulted him on his face, stomach and threw his tiffin box for that incident he had filed a

written complaint to the station manager but station manager did not take any action. This witness further stated that

he filed a complaint case no.- 2324 (C) of 2002 against R. Prasad before CJM, Patna and another complaint case no.-

2325 (C) of 2002 against Sujit Kumar Roy before the CJM, Patna for which court took cognizance against both of

them against their respective cases and both are on bail. This witness further stated that he has filed a petition to

General Manager ( Commercial ) Kolkatta to change the enquiry officer J.C. Suri, because J.C. Suri was doing

ex-parte enquiry. This witness further stated that on 04.04.2003 enquiry was conducted one sided and the enquiry

officer pressurised him to put signature on the enquiry proceeding. However, the facts and evidence brought by him

before the enquiry officer was not recorded and the enquiry officer wrote the enquiry proceeding in English language

and he made protest. This witness further stated that his all plea were not taken by the enquiry officer and he

proceeded his enquiry ex-parte and without giving opportunity to him passed ex-parte order i.e beyond the principle of

natural justice. This witness further stated that the management has forwarded his dismissal order to National

Tribunal, Mumbai that was totally wrong because National Tribunal, Mumbai has the Jurisdiction to confirm the order

passed against the officers of Indian Airlines only. This tribunal finds that no one turn-up on behalf of the management

to cross-examine the witness on 28.06.2022. Accordingly he has been discharged. This tribunal further finds that on

quarry by this tribunal, this witness reported he was dismissed in the year 2005 and the tribunal found domestic

enquiry not proper and fair and he also reported his age is 54 years.

11. This tribunal finds that besides his evidence, the workman Mandeo Rai had filed the affidavited evidence of his

witnesses namely Ravi Nandan Kumar Paswan, the company employee of Patna Airport. Naresh Kumar Singh casual

helper of Patna Airport and affidavited evidence of one Ram Pravesh Paswan casual worker of Patna Airport. This

tribunal further finds that a petition with an affidavit is filed by Mandeo Rai on 19.07.2022 mentioning therein, his

witness Naresh Kumar Singh died on 25.10.2021 and other two witness namely Ram Pravesh Paswan and Ravi

Nandan Kumar Paswan are traceless as they left the Patna and it is also mentioned by the workman in his affidavit

evidence that the affidavited of three witnesses was filed in this tribunal on 21.12.2019 itself. Workman prayed due to

aforesaid reasons he could not produce them for cross-examination, hence his evidence may kindly be closed. After

scrutinizing the affidavited petition filed by the workman and after hearing the representative of the workman, this

tribunal allowed the petition, of the workman and thus the affidavited evidence of Ravi Nandan Kumar Paswan, Ram

Pravesh Paswan and Naresh Kumar Singh became infructuous as they did not turn-up for cross-examination

mentioning the reasons for their non appearance.

12. It is argued from the learned counsel for the workman that Mandeo Rai the workman has been removed from the

service in the year 2005 after holding a biased enquiry against him as workman had made protest for the change of the

enquiry officer because of his biased attitude but his prayer was unheard and ultimately after concluding the enquiry

ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the workman passed an erroneous perverse order and there by dismissal

order is passed by the disciplinary authority of the management that was also confirmed by the appellate authority. It

is also argued that the facts of workman he was misbehaved and abused by the Sujit Kumar Roy the traffic assistant of

Patna Airport at canteen premisses on 31.10.2002 in which the workman filed a written complaint to the station

manager i.e was never taken up by the station manager rather a false and fabricated complaint against the workman

Mandeo Rai has been filed by the Sujit Kumar Roy as at the instance of R. Prasad of Patna Airport. It is further argued

410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that when the complaint of workman was not entertained by the management side. Mandeo Rai filed a complaint case

no.- 2324 (C) of 2002 and against R. Prasad the station manager and 2325 (C) of 2002 of against Sujit Kumar Roy

before the CJM, Patna on 13.11.2002 in which the court took cognizance against both of them in their respective

cases. This all is corroborated by workman in his evidence before this tribunal but management side deliberately did

not turn-up to cross-examine the witness Mandeo Rai so version of Mandeo Rai is unchallenged by the management

side. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the workman that initially this case was proceeded by this tribunal to

adjudicate the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry for which both sides adduced evidence and after

securitizing the entire material placed by the both the sides, this tribunal hold that the enquiry was not fair and proper.

It is also argued that subsequently management side did not adduce any evidence on merit to suffice its contentions

whatever mentioned in the written statement regarding justification of dismissal order against workman Mandeo Rai.

It is further argued that since this tribunal hold the enquiry was not fair and proper conducted by the enquiry officer

then the proposed punishment of the enquiry officer and followed by the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary

authority and its affirmation by the appellate authority become frustrated. It is also argued that since management side

completely failed to justify the dismissal order of the Mandeo Rai by any cogent evidence so the relief as asked by the

workman in his statement of claim should be allowed in favour of the workman.

13 On the other hand management side did not appear and did not place any argument of its sides.

14. Considering all the facts & circumstances of the case and the submissions as advanced on behalf of the learned

counsel of the workman and materials available on record as discussed above this tribunal finds that this reference

case no.- 11(C) of 2009 has been received to this tribunal on 29.12.2009 to adjudicate reference sehedule:-

(i)“Whether the action of the management of National Aviation Company of India Limited ( erstwhile Indian

Airlines Limited ) in removing Shri Mandeo Rai, Cabin Crew from the services w.e.f. 27.04.2005 is justified and

legal? (ii) To what relief is the workmen concerned entitled?”This tribunal further find that initially the case was

fixed to adjudicate the fairness and propriety of domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer J.C.Suri who was

entrusted by the management to hold the enquiry. This tribunal further finds that both the sides placed their respective

evidence documentary as well as oral evidence and after securitizing all the materials and submission of both the sides

this tribunal hold the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and at the same time this tribunal gave direction to the

management to produce documents and evidence on merit of the case for the final adjudication of the dispute but

management side did not adduce any evidence even after knowing the proceeding of the case and did not abide the

order of this tribunal dt-28.04.2016 moreover it was never challenged by the management side rather management side

filed a petition to stay the proceeding as similar matter is pending before the National Tribunal, Mumbai that was also

heard and this tribunal rejected the petition of the management vide order dt- 22.01.2019. This tribunal find and hold

that management side did not adduce any evidence to justify the removal of workman Mandeo Rai from the service

w.e.f 27.04.2005. However, the tribunal had already passed the order the domestic enquiry as conducted by the

enquiry officer against the workman Mandeo Rai was not fair and proper. However on the basis of enquiry report the

workman Mandeo Rai was dismissed from the service from 27.04.2005. This tribunal further finds that workman side

has thoroughly proved his contention before this tribunal by way of oral evidence i.e also not controverted by the

management side. This tribunal further finds since the domestic enquiry was not found fair and proper by this tribunal

and subsequently no evidence adduced from the management side in the support of the action taken by the

management for the removal of Mandeo Rai workman from the services, is the clear indication that the removal order

passed by the disciplinary authority and the affirmation order by the appellate authority is not legal and justified.

15. Thus on scanning of all the material available on the record as discussed above this is the considered opinion of

this tribunal that the action of the management in removing Sri Mandeo Rai the workman from the service

w.e.f 27.04.2005 is not justified and legal. Accordingly, management National Aviation Company of India Limited

( erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited ) is directed to reinstate the workman Mandeo Rai in service from 01.11.2002 and

make payment of all his dues, salary from 01.11.2002 onwards and other consequential benefits as per rules within

two months of publication of this award. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 174.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ईस्ट्टना कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण, पटना ds iapkV (सन्िभा केस नंबर 10© का 2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012/50/2010-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

411

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2024

S.O. 174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.Case.No.10© of 2011) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-20012/50/2010– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA

Reference Case No.:- 10 (C) of 2011

Between the management of Chief General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Rajmahal, Area Simra Godda,

Godda and Their workman Sri Dinesh Kumar represented through The General Secretary, Jharkhand Mazdoor

Kalyan Sangh B/46/90, Urjanagar, PO: Mahagama, Godda, Jharkhand, Jharkhand.

For the management:-

Sri Saurabh Sunny, Dy. Manager (P). Sri Pranav Kumar, Presenting Officer.

For the workman:-

himself represent.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt- 27^th December, 2023.

By the adjudication order no.- L-20012/50/2010-IR(CM-I) New Delhi, dated- 27.06.2011 the Govt. of India

Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2K) of section 10 of

the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the

management of Chief General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Rajmahal, Area Simra Godda, Godda and Their

workman Sri Dinesh Kumar represented through The General Secretary, Jharkhand Mazdoor Kalyan Sangh B/46/90,

Urjanagar, PO: Mahagama, Godda, Jharkhand, Jharkhand for adjudication to this tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Lalmatia, Goad in denying Promotion to

Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Electrician to the Electrician Supervisor Grade, while other employees similarly placed

have been promoted, is justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

2. As per the workman’s claim the workman Sri Dinesh Kumar was posted at Daluhand, OCT, in Pandesar Area,

Dist.- Burdwan, West Bangal from 25.12.1984 thereafter, he was transferred to Rajmahal Project, Dist.- Godda in the

year-1990. It if further asserted that as per the scheme formulated by the management of Coal India Ltd., workmen

were to be promoted after of interval of four years. Dinesh Kumar the workman, was the last promoted in the year

1992 and his promotion was due in the year 1996 and 2000 also as per the scheme of the Coal India Ltd. It is further

averred in the written statement that the promotion about forty five similarly placed workman was taken by the

management but the case of the Dinesh Kumar was not considered. As the management had taken the plea that the

workman was not possessing the High Tension ( H.T ) Licence while denying promotion to him, on the other hand

this criteria was relaxed in relation to 40 workmen of whom many were junior to him and rest were similarly placed

with him. It is further asserted that the workman has been discharging the duties of a supervisor as foreman in-charge

since 2000. It is also asserted that the workman represented to the management on a number of occasions but no

positive step was taken by the management side. Thereafter workman had approached to the Hon’ble High Court

Ranchi, where the management took the plea that the alternate remedy was available under Industrial Dispute

Act,1947. Accordingly, the writ petition was withdrawn and then Industrial Dispute was raised before the appropriate

authority. It is further asserted that Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna found the merit in the dispute, the

conciliation officer advised management settling the dispute but the management side adopted uncompromising

attitude resulted the conciliation ended in the failure and the instant dispute is referred to this tribunal. The action of

the management of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Lalmatia, Godda in denying the promotion to workman Dinesh Kumar

E.P Electrician to the EXCV Supervisor Grade ‘A’ is not justified. On the following grounds:-

(a) The management has violated the principle as laid down under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution;

(b) Management resorted to discrimination while promoting about 40 persons who are either similarly

placed or junior to the workman;

412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman;

Thus the workman prays for the following relief (S):-

(i) The workman be promoted to higher post in the year 1996;

(ii)The workman be regularized as an Electrician Supervisor Grade ‘A’ from 2000 with all

consequential benefits;

(iii) The workman be paid at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for contesting the dispute;

(iv) Any other relief (S) as the Tribunal deems fit and proper;

3. It the worth mentioning here that when the management side did not turn up inspite of having knowledge of

proceeding, this tribunal had initiated the ex-party proceeding vide order dt-03.01.2014 and the workman side also

examined two witnesses but later on, the management side appeared on 19.05.2015 and filed a recall petition of ex-

parte proceeding that was allowed on 24.06.2015 with the cost of Rs. 2500/-. Subsequently management side filed

written statement on 29.07.2015.

4. As per the written statement furnished by the management side, it is asserted therein the claim of the petitioner (

workman ) is not tenable either in law or in facts as workman does not possess the HT certificate as per the scheme

because for the promotion to supervisor grade as per rules and the guidelines the the HT Certificate is essential

besides this other experience and the findings of DPC Committee is essential. It is further asserted that the petitioner

/workman was promoted from Excv. Grade-D to Excv. Grade-C w.e.f 1992 so his assertion is not correct that his

promotion was due from 1992 for the E.P Electrician in Grade-B. As per cadre scheme for the promotion to the post

of E.P Electrician Grade-B, the petitioner /workman was advised to appear before the DPC on 04.03.1997 in the

office of Supdt. (M)/Manager, Rajmahal OCP and there by workman appeared for the same but he did not get through

in the trade test. Moreover the workman did not produce the HT Permit Certificate which is highly essential for the

promotion of E.P Electrician Grade-B hence the workman was not selected. It is further asserted that none of the

employee of EP Electrician Grade-C was promoted in the EP Electrician Grade-B without the HT Certificate as it is

the must for the promotion as per the cadre scheme. It is further asserted that the claim of the workman, the employee

gets promotion after the internal of four years is not the only criteria, it also depends on the vacancy in the higher

grade, rather clearance from the DPC and holding HT Certificate is must as per the cadre scheme however the

workman himself admitted that he does not possess the HT Certificate. It is further asserted that the claim of the

workman is not correct, his promotion was due from 1996 for the post of E.P Electrician in Grade-B. Promotion from

a grade to higher grade based is on the minimum years of experience required in that grade, essential certificates as

required and also subject to the vacancy in that higher grade. It is further asserted that the claim of the workman is

also not correct that the management has relaxed the eligibility criteria for the promotion of other persons. It is further

asserted that since the workman has not fulfilled the eligibility norms and requisite statutory qualification as per the

cadre scheme. So he was not considered for the promotion by the management. So case of workman is devoid of

merit and it is fit to be dismissed.

Having gone through the statement of claim as filed by the workman and written statement as filed by the

management side the following issues are recasted for adjudication:-

(i) “Whether the workman Dinesh Kumar was entitled for the promotion from the post of Electrician to

Supervisor Grade?

(ii) “Whether the other employees of similarly placed cadre have been promoted?”

(iii)“Whether the action of the management denying the promotion of Dinesh Kumar is justified?”

FINDINGS

All the issues are interlinked so it has to be decided on the basis of evidence as placed by rival parties. On

behalf of the management, representative of the management examined altogether three witnesses in support of

denying the claim of Dinesh Kumar for his promotion who are namely ShivajeeAnand Rao Yadav the Chief Manager

Personnel (M.W-1), M.W-2 Malay Kumar Bose, Senior Manager Personnel and M.W-3 Navneet Kumar Choudhary,

Manager Personnel. Besides, this management side filed two documents and the same be marked Extd. As

Ext.-M Cadre Scheme for excavation Personnel EP Electrician Grade-B to E.P Electrician with its rules ( 8 pages ).

Ext.-M/1- A letter of workman Dinesh Kumar addressing to Senior Personnel Manager, Rajmahal Project of dt-

15.11.2021.

Workman side examined two witnesses namely W.W-1 Sri Kant Singh and W.W-2 Sit Nonia prior to

recalling the ex-parte proceeding and after recall the ex-parte proceeding workman himself examined as W.W-3.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

413

Besides, this workman has filed some documents i.e marked as Exts:-

(i) Ext.W --Cadre scheme for excavation personnel EL Electrician GR III to EP Senior Electrician.

(ii) Ext.W/1-- Office order of dt- 10.04.2001 given by Senior

Personnel Rajmahal.

(iii) Ext.W/2--Office order of dt- 19.09.2004 issued by Superintendent (M) Manager, Rajmahal (OCP).

(iv) Ext.W/3--Letter issued by the management to workman to join the duties of H.K.Singh foreman.

(v) Ext.W/4-- Letter of dt-09.04.1999 issued by Chief Personnel Manager to P.K. Roy, Personnel Manager,

Head Quarter with the subject Dinesh Kumar for his promotion in technical-A.

(vi) Ext.W/5--Standing Order in respect of Eastern Cold Field Ltd.

(vii) Ext W/6, W/6-1 & W/6-2 -- Applications of Dinesh Kumar dt- 18.02.2003, 09.06.2003, 13.06.2005

addressing to the Chief General Manager in connection with his promotion.

(viii) Ext.W/7-- Letter of dt-31.12.2005 issued by President Jharkhand Mazdoor Sangh Morcha disclosing of

workers.

8. First of all this tribunal scrutinize the evidence of management side M.W-1 Shivajee Anand Rao Yadav who is

the Chief Manager Personnel, Rajmahal examined on 14.07.2016 who categorically admitted that workman Dinesh

Kumar is working on the post on EP Electrician, he wants to be promoted in Assistant foreman grade but his

promotion cann’t be considered as per rules and regulation because workman has no HT Certificate that is pre-

requisite of promotion. This witness also stated that the claim of the workman is false saying he got promotion in

1992 and thereafter he is entitled to be promoted on every four years.

In cross-examination this witness categorically admitted in para-5, if a workman has requisite qualification and if

the vacancy is there then a committee of the project considers promotion after serving four years on the previous post.

In para-6 of cross-examination this witness stated that there is promotion criteria for four years experience for EP

Electrician -3 to EP Senior Electrician but this is not essential but this witness also stated that this is not happened 40-

50 EP Electrician got promotion in Assistant foreman.

9. M.W-2 (Malay Kumar Bose) the Senior Manager, Personnel examined on 14.07.2016 this witness admitted

examination-in-chief that workman got promotion in 1992 and if the budget allows and vacancy exists then he might

be promoted in1996 and in year 2000. As per the claim of Dinesh Kumar for his promotion certificate of the High

Tension is pre-requisite but he cann’t say whether Dinesh Kumar is having HT Certificate or not.

In cross-examination this witness categorically admitted that he does not know Dinesh Kumar personally but his

promotion case is pending and he came to know from Senior Officers, the head quarter rejected the request of

promotion as placed by Dinesh Kumar.

10. M.W-3 Navneet Kumar Pandey, Manager Personnel examined on 28.03.2022. He categorically stated before this

tribunal that workman Dinesh Kumar is posted as EP Electrician Grade-C category and he wants promotion to grade-

B. As per promotion rules of cadre scheme vacancy must be there and HT Certificate is required for promotion.

However Dinesh Kumar is not having HT Certificate and he also given in writing to the authority regarding not

having any HT Certificate. This witness proved the cadre scheme promotion rules i.e( 8 pages ) marked as Ext.-M.

In cross-examination this witness admits that Dinesh Kumar got promotion in the year-1992 and there is nothing

in the cross-examination to be looked into.

11. Now this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of workman side. W.W-1 Sri Kant Singh, Dumper Operator, Rajmahal

was examined on 10.02.2014 prior to ex-parte recalling proceeding. This witness stated that Dinesh Kumar was

working Rajmahal Cold Field Project. He is entitled for promotion but department is not given him promotion

disclosing there is no vacancy and lack of budget like wise.

12.

W.W-2 Sit Nonia stated that Dinesh Kumar is working as incharge foreman for the last 12 years but he could

not get promotion like wise. This tribunal finds that both witnesses have not been recalled by the management for the

cross- examination after recalling the ex-parte proceeding.

13.

W.W-3 is the Dinesh Kumar the workman himself, who stated before this tribunal that he has working as T &

S “A” from the year 2000 ECL Rajmahal. He was directed to do the work of T & S “A” by officers of the ECL. This

witness stated that he got his last promotion in the year 1992. This witness further stated that he has written a letter to

the Chief Personnel Manager, Rajmahal in the year 1999regarding promotion thereafter Chief Personnel Officer has

sent a letter to the Higher Official mentioning therein if the workman possess the requisite qualification, he will get

promotion. This witness further stated that there is rules of promotion of Coal India. Every worker should gets

promotion on every four years. This witness also stated that he has written several letters to the authorities for his

promotion but his request could not be considered. This witness further stated that his colleagues working on similar

414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

post have been promoted after the relaxing in the rules. This witness further stated that when he was not paid for the

work of foreman incharge, he put objection but the authority directed him to do the work of incharge foreman

otherwise there will be violation of rules, so he is entitled for promotion. This witness further proved the office order

of dt- 10.04.2001 marked as Ext.-W/1 for his transfer and posting to pit office. This witness further proved the office

order of dt- 19,09.2004 marked as Ext.-W/2 showing his rest day (Saturday) working at pit office. This witness

further proved the letter dt- 15.09.2015 for joining the duties of HK Singh foreman i.e marked Ext.-W/3. This witness

further proved the letter of dt- 09.04.1999 written by Chief Manager Personnel to Personnel Manager, Head Quarter

regarding promotion of Dinesh Kumar in technical grade”A” i.e marked as Ext.-W/4. This witness further proved the

standing order of the Eastern Cold Field Ltd regarding classification of workmen marked as Ext.- W/5. This witness

further proved his three letters dt- 18.02.2009, 09.06.2003 and 13.06.2005 addressing to the Chief General Manager

requesting for his promotion i.e marked as Ext.- W/6, W/6-1, & W/6-2. This witness further proved the letter of

President, Jharkhand Mazdoor Morcha given to Chief General Manager, Rajmahal showing the list of workmen

marked as Ext.-W/7.

In cross-examination this witness categorially admitted that he was appointed in 25.12.1984 and he is

working on the post of EP grade “C”. He got last promotion in the year 1992. In para-26 of the cross-examination of

this witness categorically admitted that this is not true there is minimum qualification for promotion and also not true

there must be vacancy for the promotion. In para-30 of cross-examination this witness admitted that he has given a

letter to the Senior Officer Personnel i.e marked as Ext.-M/1 and he further denied Ext.-W/2 is forged. In para-33 of

cross-examination this witness stated that this is not fact that his documents Ext.-W/6 does not denote of any

promotion and the shown list of workman got promotion without statutory certificate and he further stated in cross-

examination of para-34 is Ext.-W/4 shows regarding his promotion.

14.

It is argued from the management side the claim of the workman is not at all maintainable as per the rules and

regulations of Eastern Cold Field. It is further argued that the workman has no H.T Certificate that is essential for

promotion to the post of Electrician Supervisor which is admitted by the workman also. However, workman claims

without requisite certificate 40-45 employees got promotion who were on similar post but this contention of the

workman is not at all established by the workman and moreover workman failed to apprise the name of the workmen

who got promotion without having H.T. Certificate and prevailing vacancy. This plea simply a sweeping plea taken

by the workman. It is further argued that the documents got Extd. By the workman side clearly shows that he was

apprised by the management that if there will be vacancy then he will be considered on priority provided he should

fulfilled the criteria of promotion. Since workman has no H.T. Certificate and there was no vacancy hence his

promotion could not be considered. So workman is not entitled for any relief.

16.

On the other hand it is argued from the workman side as per the rules formulated by the management Coal

India Ltd., the workman were to be promoted after an interval of four years. This workman Dinesh Kumar was

promoted in the year 1992 and thereafter his promotion was due in 1996 and 2000 as per the scheme of Cold India

Ltd. Further management promoted more than 40 workmen who were similarly placed but the case of the workman

was not considered. It has been further argued, the workman filed his representation represented to the management

on a number of occasions regarding to consider his promotion but the management did not consider his request,

inspite of doing duty of in charge foreman as per instruction of authority in place of one H.K.Singh when he was ill. It

is further argued that even after request for promotion, the workman was not called for DPC as against this Junior

Fellowmen were promoted as per certified standing order of ECL. Workman should have been promoted w.e.f 2000

as many persons were promoted barring the workman. The workman side filed some documents in support of his

claim i.e detailed in Exts.-W to W/7. It is further argued that debarring the workman for his promotion by

management Eastern Cold Field is not justified. So workman is entitled for promotion to the supervisor grade as per

his claim.

17.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions as advanced on behalf of both the

sides and further on scrutinizing of the oral and documentary evidence as placed by both the sides before this tribunal,

this tribunal finds that two issues emerged from the rival claims as workman claims as per standing order every

workman has to be promoted after an interval of four years, however he could not promoted after 1992 his claim of

promotion was in 1996 and 2000 in the supervisor grade. On the other hand the management side submitted through

the oral evidence, of course the experience of four years is essential for the further promotion provided workman has

H.T Certificate for the promotion to the supervisory post and further there should be vacancy for that promotional

post and these two requisite was not having the workman i.e essential for his promotion that’s why his promotion

could not be considered. This tribunal finds that the workman himself admits that he does not have H.T Certificate

marked as Ext.-M/1. Further workman failed to establish there was vacancy to the said post. This tribunal further

finds that the workman claims that 45 workmen of his similar post got promotion to the Higher grade without having

requisite certificate even workman failed t0 disclose the names of workmen who got promotion without having any

H.T. Certificate. This tribunal further find that this claim of the workman is just a sweeping claim. This tribunal

further finds that the workman filed a document i.e Ext.-W/4 that shows that on the request of the workman for his

promotion i.e Ext.-W/6 series, the Chief Personnel Manager wrote a letter to Personnel Manager, Head Quarter on

09.04.1999 disclosing the consideration of the promotion of the Dinesh Kumar can be only arrived subject to the

vacancy and eligibility and when such vacancy is arise his case will be considered by D.P.C subject to fulfilling the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

415

criteria and requisite qualification as per guidelines and as per scheme. Here this tribunal finds and hold that the

workman has misconceived the contention of Ext.-W/4 as he stated before this tribunal through his evidence that the

Chief Personnel Manager have sent a letter for his promotion in technical “A”grade. Further this tribunal finds and

hold that the workman again misconceived Ext.-W/7 i.e the letter issued by the representative Jharkhand Mazdoor

Morcha to the Rajmahal filed disclosing the list of the workmen for their scrutiny i.e 46 a number this document does

not show that 46 workmen named in Ext.-W/7 got promoted without having any basic requisite. This tribunal further

finds that the management witness M.W-1, M.W-2 and M.W-3 clearly established that the workman Dinesh Kumar

could not got promotion because of he was not having H.T. Certificate i.e pre-requisite for the promotion grade “A”

Electrician Supervisory and their evidence could not be controverted by the workman. Further workman has been

totally failed to establish his claim he should be promoted like other 45 workmen of similar post, who got promotion

for after relexing the requisite eligibility. This tribunal further finds and hold that the workman himself admits he does

not have H.T. Certificate ( Ext.-M/1).

18. Thus on scanning of all the material available on the record as discussed above this tribunal finds and hold that

the workman has been totally failed to establish his claim of promotion to the Supervisory grade “A” as he was not

having H.T. Certificate and there was no vacancy at the time of his claim i.e dully established by the management

authority. This is the settled principle of law also no persons can get promotion, if one does not possess the essential

qualification here Dinesh Kumar workman was not having H.T. Certificate the essential requisite for the promotion of

Electrician Supervisory grade “A” accordingly this is the considered opinion of this tribunal the action of the

management of Eastern Cold Field Ltd. Lalmatia Godda indenying promotion to Sri Dinesh Kumar ( Workman )

Electrician Supervisory Grade “A” is justified. Thus workman Sri Dinesh Kumar is not entitled for any relief.This

award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 175.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण, पटना ds iapkV (सन्िभा केस नंबर 27 © का 2022) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2024

S.O. 175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.Case.No. 27 © of 2022) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Spice Jet Ltd. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICERINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:- 27 (C) of 2022

Between the management of The management of M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna ( Management No.- (1). Mr. S.Z

Hassan, Station Manager, M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna Jai Prakash Narayan Interanational Airport, Patna-800014 (2)

Shree Amit Jha, Security In-charge, M/S Spice Jet Ltd., Patna Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna-

800014 (3) Mr. N. Thiyagarajan, Chief Security Officer of Spice Jet, Gurgaon- 122016, Harayana and their workman

Sri Dev Sagar Gupta, A to Z tiles and hardware, Mukhiya Market, Kumraon Road, Malliyabag, Vill + P.O- Semri,

P.S- Dawath, Dist.- Rohtas, Pin-802211.

For the management:-

Mr. Aayush Abhishek & Deepika Sharma.

Sri Nand Mohan Das, Manager.

For the workman:-

himself present.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated-30^th October, 2023

By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID/(02/2022/Dy.CLC Patna, dated- 05.04.2022 the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour & Employment, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-

section-(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the

following dispute between the management of The management of M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna ( Management No.- (1).

Mr. S.Z Hassan, Station Manager, M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna Jai Prakash Narayan Interanational Airport, Patna-800014

(2) Shree Amit Jha, Security In-charge, M/S Spice Jet Ltd., Patna Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna-

800014 (3) Mr. N. Thiyagarajan, Chief Security Officer of Spice Jet, Gurgaon- 122016, Harayana and their workman

Sri Sri Dev Sagar Gupta, A to Z tiles and hardware, Mukhiya Market, Kumraon Road, Malliyabag, Vill + P.O- Semri,

P.S- Dawath, Dist.- Rohtas, Pin-802211 for adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S Spice Jet Ltd., Patna Bihar, in terminating the services of

workman concerned Shri Dev Sagar Gupta, T.S.E. (Trainee Security Executive) without following principles

of natural justice, is just & proper? If not, to what reliefs the workman concerned is entitled to?”

Upon receiving the instant reference, notice was sent to the both the sides on 27.07.2022 fixing on

08.09.2022. Records shows workman himself came before this tribunal on 08.09.2022 and he was apprised about the

proceeding but thereafter workman never appeared before this tribunal and he did not file any statement of claim.

Record shows that management side appeared on 21.02.2022 and submitted before this tribunal, that management is

willing file appropriate written statement upon receiving the statement of claim of workman. When workman did not

turn-up inspite of knowing the proceeding, this tribunal again sent issue to the workman through registered post on

22.11.2022 but workman Dev Sagar Gupta did not turn-up inspite of receiving the registered notice i.e evident to this

facts that the issued registered notice was never returned back to this tribunal i.e indicating of this facts registered

notice was well received by the workman Dev Sagar Gupta. Ample opportunity have been given to the workman to

file his statement of claim but neither he appeared, nor filed any statement of claim. However, he was again informed

through his given mobile no. but workman did not appear before this tribunal. Continuous absence of workman from

01.11.2022 till 10.10.2023 that clearly shows that workman has no interest at all in his own dispute as raised before

the Dy. Chief Labour commissioner (C), Patna. This tribunal further finds that management side always appeared

before this tribunal on each and every date, short reply / synopsis of this dispute has been also filed by the

management on 23.08.2023 with a prayer, since workman Dev Sagar Gupta has no interest to participate in the instant

case so appropriate order may kindly be passed.

On the ultimate analysis of entire proceeding this tribunal finds that this reference case was received on

12.07.2022 both sides were aware of the proceeding. Workman himself appeared on 08.09.2022 before this tribunal

but later on he never appeared before this tribunal and did not file any statement of claim. This all shows that perhaps

workman has no grievance with the management now, that’s why he left the pairvi even after knowing the proceeding

of this case. So in the facts & circumstances of case as discussed above, this tribunal has no option than to pass “No

Dispute Award”. Thus this tribunal pass “No Dispute Award” accordingly. This award is effected after date of

publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 176.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरण, पटना ds iapkV (सन्िभा केस नंबर 26© का 2022) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

417

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2024

S.O. 176.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.Case.No. 26 © of 2022) of the Industrial Tribunal, PATNA

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Spice Jet Ltd. and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 11/01/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICERINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:- 26 (C) of 2022

Between the management of The management of M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna ( Management No.-(1). Mr. S.Z

Hassan, Station Manager, M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna Jai Prakash Narayan Interanational Airport, Patna-800014 (2)

Shree Amit Jha, Security In-charge, M/S Spice Jet Ltd., Patna Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna-

800014 (3) Mr. N. Thiyagarajan, Chief Security Officer of Spice Jet, Gurgaon- 122016, Harayana and their

workman Sri Niraj Kumar, Jamuna Tower, Block-A, Flat-1,E, RMS Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020.

For the management:-

Mr. Aayush Abhishek & Deepika Sharma.

Sri Nand Mohan Das, Manager.

For the workman:-

himself present.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated- 18th October, 2023

By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID/(01/2022/Dy.CLC Patna, dated- 05.04.202022 the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and

sub-section-(2A) of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the

following dispute between the management of The management of M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna ( Management

No.- (1). Mr. S.Z Hassan, Station Manager, M/S Spice Jet Ltd. Patna Jai Prakash Narayan Interanational Airport,

Patna-800014 (2) Shree Amit Jha, Security In-charge, M/S Spice Jet Ltd., Patna Jai Prakash Narayan International

Airport, Patna-800014 (3) Mr. N. Thiyagarajan, Chief Security Officer of Spice Jet, Gurgaon- 122016, Harayana and

their workman Sri Niraj Kumar, Jamuna Tower, Block-A, Flat-1,E, RMS Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020 for

adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S Spice Jet Ltd., Patna Bihar, in terminating the services of

workman concerned Shri Niraj Kumar, T.S.E. ( Trainee Security Executive ) without following principles of

natural justice, is just & proper? If not, to what reliefs the workman concerned is entitled to?”

Upon receiving the reference case on 12.07.2022. notices has been issued to both the sides. On 27.07.2022

fixing on 08.09.2022 but management side did not appear on the fixed date, however, a time petition has been filed on

behalf of the workman on 08.09.2022. Record shows that workman never appeared thereafter but the management

side appeared on 21.12.2022. When the workman did not appear before this tribunal inspite of given opportunities, he

was again informed through his given Mobile No. to appear this tribunal on 14.03.2023 but in spite of having

knowledge of the proceeding workman Niraj Kumar did not appear and did not file any statement of claim till

10.10.2023. However, tribunal has given ample opportunities to the workman to place his grievance by way of

statement of claim. This tribunal further finds that management side also filed a synopsis of reply on 23.08.2023 with

a prayer to pass appropriate order since the workman is not willing to participate in this proceeding.

3. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and on securitizing the entire record of this case, this

tribunal finds that this reference case was received on 12.07.2022 and upon receiving notice, workman Niraj Kumar

appeared before this tribunal on 08.09.2022 and filed a time petition for filing statement of claim but Niraj Kumar the

workman never appeared before this tribunal, thereafter and did not file any statement of claim. His continuous

absence itself denotes that perhaps workman Niraj Kumar has no interest at all in the instant case. That is a clear

indication, he has no grievance now. Accordingly in the facts & circumstances of the case as discussed above this is

the considered opinion of this tribunal that tribunal has no option than to pass “No Dispute Award”. Thus this tribunal

pass “ No Dispute Award” accordingly. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 177.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj हसंगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंपनी जलजमटेड 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; िैिराबाि, ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 17 /2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2024.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 177.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Hyderabadas shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/01/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -

Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 6^th

day of June, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.17/2006

Between:

Sri Menthaboina Ramulu,

S/o Ramachandraiah,

R/o H.No.3-1-61, Manthini File,

Yellandu, Khammam District.

… Petitioner

And

1. The Chairman and Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Head Office, Kothagudem.

Khammam district.

2. The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Yellandu Area,

Khammam District.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Menthaboina Ramulu who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred hereinafter “workman”) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s.Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd., seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as

continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems

fit.

The averments made by the Petitioner Workman in the petition are as follows:

It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Badli Coal Filler on 19.11.1981 and confirmed as Coal Filler on

19.2.1982, at Yellandu by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. It is submitted that he was a prompt worker,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

419

regularly attended for duty and worked to the utmost satisfaction of the superiors without any remark till date. The

management issued a Charge sheet No. YLD/JK-5/24/207, dated 10.8.2003 alleging that the petitioner gave false

information about his name and father's name in connection with his employment and cheated the company by

fraudulent methods. Upon the issuance of the charge sheet, enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report dated

17.5.2004 vide Ref. No. YLD/PER/38/1346, was given to the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled by the

management against the petitioner were proved. On 23.5.2004 the petitioner submitted a telugu written representation

to the 2^nd respondent, in reply to the findings of the enquiry officer. Even after receiving the above said

representation the management issued a dismissal letter vide Ref. No. YLD / PER/38/2122, dated 5.8.2004 and the

respondents dismissed the petitioner with effect from 7.8.2004 stating that there were no extenuating circumstances

warranting lesser punishment, and under those circumstances they decided to dismiss the petitioner from the

company's services. On 25.8.2004 the Petitioner submitted an appeal to the 1^st respondent, in which the lapses

occurred on behalf of the enquiry officer in preparing the enquiry report were highlighted, and prayed the Hon'ble

authority to cancel the dismissal order and allow the petitioner for duty. The Enquiry Officer did not mark any

exhibit on either behalf, to prove the case. He did not consider the positive points in favour of the petitioner in the

enquiry proceedings. The benefit of doubt was not granted to this petitioner in the enquiry. The contention of the

management is that the petitioner joined the company as the dependent son of a retired employee, but he was his son-

in law. As per the agreements, circulars, and practice any employee retired on medical grounds, can get his

dependents, ie. son, adopted son or son-in-law employed in the company. Therefore the company does not loose

anything if the petitioner is the son, adopted son or son-in-law of the retired employee. The respondent management

without considering the explanation given by the petitioner workmen, the enquiry officer came to the erroneous

conclusions basing on the biased statement of the presenting officer and his witness. It is further submitted that the

respondent management illegally issued the dismissal order dt. 5.8.2004 without considering the logic, equity and

natural justice in the case. The management also did not consider the Petitioner's long-standing service of 23 years

without any remarks. Hence the punishment of dismissal is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and disproportionate. The

disciplinary authority ought to have considered that the proposed punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate

to the gravity of the charges. It is further submitted that the petitioner workman is suffering from severe financial

difficulties since dismissal from the job, because the petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family on whom wife

and children are depended for their lively hood, and the petitioner could not secure alternate employment since his

dismissal from service. The petitioner and his family are at the edge of starvation. Therefore, it is prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the enquiry conducted by the respondent is vitiated and pass award

directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner herein with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or

orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit punishment of dismissal is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and disproportionate

and proper in the circumstances of the case.

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

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner who has been dismissed from the Company's service seeking

reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has secured employment in the respondent company by

giving false information regarding his name and his father's name. It is submitted that the petitioner namely Sri

Menthaboina Ramulu was appointed as Badli Filler on 18.05.1981 and was subsequently drafted as Coal filler with

effect from 01.03.1982. The contention of the petitioner that he was a prompt worker, regularly attended for duty

and worked to the utmost satisfaction of superiors without any remark till date, is not correct and the petitioner is put

to strict proof of the same. It is contended that the petitioner gave false information regarding his name and father's

name at the time of his appointment in the company. It is submitted that it has come to the notice of the respondent

that the original name of the petitioner is "Uppari Ramulu S/o. Thirupathaiah" and he secured employment in the

respondent company by giving false information regarding his name and his father's name. As such, a charge sheet

was issued to him vide Letter No. YLD/JK-5/24/207. dated 10-08-2003 under Company's Standing Orders No. 25

(1) and 25 (10) and for ready convenience which are extracted below:

"25(1) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property.

25(10) Giving of false information regarding one's name age, father's name, qualifications etc. in connection with

his employment."

It is further submitted that the enquiry was conducted by giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner duly

Complying with principles of natural justice. The petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry along with his co-

worker. The charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. A copy of the enquiry report together with the

enquiry proceedings was served on the petitioner vide Letter No. YLD/PER/38/1346, dated 17.05.2004 giving him an

opportunity to represent against the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted a representation dated

23.05.2004 and it was found not satisfactory. As such, the petitioner was dismissed from the respondent's company

with effect from 07.08.2004, vide Letter No. YLD/PER/38/2122, dated 05.08.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner

has submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has examined the representation

submitted by the petitioner and came to a conclusion that there are no merits to set aside the dismissal order and

confirmed the penalty of the dismissal vide letter No.CRP/PER/IR/D/90/2000, dated 26.11.2004. The contention of

420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not mark any exhibits on his behalf to prove the case and that he had not

considered the points in favour of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, are denied and the petitioner is put to

strict proof of the same. It is reiterated that the enquiry was conducted by fully complying with the principles of

natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner had joined the respondent company as son of an ex-employee namely

M. Ramchander who was declared unfit. It has come to the notice of the respondent that the original name of Sri

Menthaboina Ramulu (Petitioner herein) is Uppari Ramulu S/o. Thirupathaiah and he secured employment in the

respondent company by giving false information regarding his name and his father's name. The contention of the

petitioner that the respondent company does not loose anything with the petitioner is the son, adopted son or son-in-

law of the retired employee is not correct and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is reiterated that the

petitioner secured employment by fraudulent means by giving false information regarding his name and his father's

name, which amounts to misconduct Under Company's Certified Standing Orders. An enquiry was conducted by fully

complying with the principles of natural justice while giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner

participated in the enquiry along with his co-worker. As the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave and

serious he was dismissed from company's services w.e.f. 07.08.2004. The contention of the petitioner that the

respondent management without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the enquiry officer came to an

erroneous conclusion based on the bias statement of the presenting officer and his witness, are denied. In fact the

Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct under company's standing orders 25 (1) and 25 (10) based on

the evidence on record. It was further established that the petitioner is son-in-law of ex-employee i.e. Sri M.

Ramchander, but not his son. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent management illegally issued the

dismissal order dated 5.8.2004 without considering the logic, equity and principles of natural justice, is not correct

and such are denied. It is further contended by the petitioner that the punishment is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and

grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, is denied. The petitioner did not submit the requisite

forms for refund of FBIS (Accumulations) and Coal Mines Provident Fund. Further, the petitioner is not entitled for

payment of Gratuity as he was dismissed from services for misconduct committed by him. In view of the above, it

is prayed this Court to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

Both the parties have filed written arguments in support of their pleadings.

From the perusal of pleadings and on the basis of submissions made by both the parties following

issues emerge for determination:-

Whether the departmental enquiry is legal and valid?

II.

Whether the action of the Respondent Management in dismissing the workman Sri Menthaboina Ramulu

from the service is justified?

III.

Whether Petitioner workman is entitled for reinstatement in service as alleged by him in his petition?

IV.

Whether the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the gravity of the charges? If not, to what relief, if

any, the Petitioner is entitled?

Finding:

6. Point No.I : Point No.I pertains to the question whether departmental enquiry held against the workman is legal

and valid. The legality and validity of the departmental enquiry has been held by the Court vide order dated

20.4.2011 as legal and valid.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Point No.II: Admittedly, workman was appointed in the Respondent company as badli coal filler on

19.11.81 and later on confirmed as coal filler on 19.2.982. He was charge sheeted for committing misconduct under

the company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 and 25.10 and departmental enquiry was initiated against him and after

providing hearing opportunity to the delinquent, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 5.8.2004 dismissed the

workman from the service on finding him guilty of misconduct under company’s Standing Orders. Further, the

workman preferred the appeal against the dismissal order but the Appellate Authority finding no ground, dismissed

the plea of the workman.

Respondent’s counsel contended that the workman had joined the Respondent’s company as a son of ex-

employee namely M. Ramachandru who was declared unfit. But later on it came to the notice of the Respondent

company that real name of the workman is Uppari Ramulu, S/o Thirupathaiah and he had secured employment in the

Respondent company by giving false information regarding his name and his father’s name. it is also submitted that

workman was actually son-in-law of the ex-employee Late M. Ramachandru, but, by impersonating himself as S/o

M. Ramachandru he obtained the employment in the Respondent company in the name of Menthaboina Ramulu by

concealing his actual name ie., Uppari Ramulu as well as his father’s name ‘Thirupathaiah’. Thus, the workman

obtained the employment as dependent of ex-employee M. Ramachandru by making misrepresentation to the

Respondent that he is son of M. Ramachandru and obtained the job in the Respondent company. Thereby he

committed fraud and dishonesty in connection with the employment and has also given false information regarding

his own name and his father’s name in connection with his employment by not disclosing his and his father’s real

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

421

name. The afore mentioned act committed by the workman for obtaining the employment in Respondent ‘s

company amounts to serious and gross misconduct under the company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 and 25.10.

Therefore, the action of the Respondent in dismissing the Petitioner from service can not be faulted with and thus

dismissal order dated 5.8.2004, w.e.f. 7.8.2004 passed is legal and justified.

On the other hand, counsel for workman submitted that he was issued with charge sheet dated 10.8.2003

with a charge of furnishing false information regarding his name as well as his father’s name and on the receipt of the

above charge sheet he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and Petitioner was not given any

opportunity much less valid in nature. It is also submitted that to prove the charge against workman the certificate

allegedly received from MRO, Yellandu, by the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer, but MRO was not

examined to prove the contents of the certificate issued by the MRO. It is also submitted by workman that

workman’s father’s name is Ramchander Rao alias Ramachandru alias Ramchander who was an employee with the

1^st Respondent company. Thereafter consequent upon Mr. Ramachander Rao’s recommendation and certification,

the Petitioner was given dependent employment. It is also submitted that all the service records relating to the

Petitioner clearly indicate that, he is the son of Late Sri Ramachander Rao alias Ramchandru. On receipt of

application submitted by the Petitioner’s father, requesting to provide employment to the Petitioner, he was given

dependent employment. It is also submitted that due to family disputes, his mother approached the Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Yellandu claiming maintenance from the Petitioner categorically pleading that the Petitioner

is the son. But in the answer to one question during the enquiry, wherein, it was alleged by Petitioner’s mother, that

the workman is not son but son-in-law, hence, the case of maintenance was failed and was cancelled by the Court.

On this basis the workman submitted that finding of the Enquiry Officer about the false information furnished by the

workman regarding name of his father is only perverse and upon the order of dismissal dated 5.8.2004 passed by

Disciplinary Authority is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be dismissed. The submission of the workman that he was

not provided hearing opportunity during the enquiry is concerned, has been decided by the tribunal vide order dated

20.4.2011 and it has been held the enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice. The issue of

legality and validity of departmental enquiry has become final. Now at this stage he is not permitted to raise this

question. Thus, I find no force in this contention of the workman.

10.

Next submission of the workman is that the Enquiry Officer, in order to prove charges against the workman,

he summoned the Respondent from MRO regarding verification of workman and his father’s name and MRO

submitted his reported dated 30.5.2003 and same was relied upon in Enquiry but MRO was not examined to prove

the contents of that report. Therefore, the dismissal order on the basis of MRO’s report is illegal and arbitrary.

Perusal of Enquiry Proceeding goes to reveal that Enquiry Officer during the Enquiry Proceeding as to ascertain the

verification of workman’s name and father’s name a report from MRO was summoned vide letter dated 26.5.2003

and in reply MRO submitted report dated 30.5.2003, addressed to Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem, therein it is specifically mentioned as below:-

“the matter has got verified and during local enquiry it was revealed that the person whose photograph is sent for

verification has been identified as Sri Uppala Ramulu, S/o Tirupathaiah who is working in M/s. Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd., and residing at H.No.3-1-61 of Manthininfile Basthi, Yellandu. The caste of the individual is

‘Golla’.”

The voters list was also attached with the report. This verification report dated 30.5.2003 of MRO has been proved

by Presenting Officer in his statement and witness Sri Shyamsundar Reddy, who was working as Dy. P.M., in the

company, has stated, “Sri Menthaboina Ramulu,S/o Ramachandra Rao is Sri Uppala Ramulu, S/o Tirupathaiah. But

he joined in company as Sri Menthaboina Ramulu S/o Ramachandra Rao and thus, he acquired job in the Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd..” He further stated, “In the enquiry conducted by company officials against the complaint

received from Smt. Mallamma alias Suvarnamma, W/o M.Ramachander Rao and Dhanalaxmi D/o Late M.

Ramachander Rao, it was revealed that Sri Ramulu (CSE) is not the son of Sri Ramachander Rao but his original

name is Uppala Ramulu S/o Thirupathiah. This was confirmed by MRO, Yellandu.The declaration of MRO and

Voter’s list copy and other witnesses have proved this. Thus, the name of Sri Ramulu (CSE) is confirmed as Sri

Uppala Ramulu, S/o Thirupathaiah.” The MW1 has categorically proved that workman’s name is Uppala Ramulu, S/o

Thirupathaiah and he is not son of Ramachander Rao. This witness was cross examined by the delinquent during

the enquiry, but in cross examination MW witness was never confronted regarding MRO report dated 30.5.2003 as

referred and proved by MW1 in chief examination. Therefore, MRO report stands proved by the evidence of MW1.

Further, the evidence of complainant the Widow of Ramachander Rao, ex-employee, Smt. Mallamma was also

recorded during the enquiry and she has stated that, they have 8 children in total one son and sever daughters.

They have given her eldest daughter Dhanalaxmi to Sri Uppala Ramulu S/o Thirupathaiah who was working as

servant in their house. Further she deposed that her husband’s job was lost six years prior to the marriage of

Dhanalaxmi. Her husband was declared medically unfit due to poor vision. Company offered dependent job to her

son through a notice displayed after 6 years. Then her son-in-law Sri Uppala Ramulu threatened her husband through

her daughter Dhanalaxmi and broken the head of her husband. Complainant witness further stated that her son-in-law

“Uppala Ramulu” created certificate as her son and now doing job in the company. Further, she deposed that he

(Uppala Ramulu) left her daughter Dhanalaxmi with them and left away and after one year he gave divorce to her

422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

daughter and married another women and got four children. Thus, he cheated her family. Thus, from the statement of

the complainant, widow of Ramachander Rao, it is evident that the workman whose real name is Uppala Ramulu,

was son-in-law of complainant and of Late Ramachander Rao, ex- employee and he was not their son. Witness was

cross examined by the delinquent and she stated categorically that workman is her son-in-law. Therefore, the

testimony of the widow of Ramachander Rao, ex-employee is cogent and reliable to prove the fact that real name of

workman is Uppala Ramulu and not Menthaboina Ramulu and he is not son of M. Ramachander Rao but his son-in-

law. Thus, it is evident from the oral and documentary evidence that the workman by coercion and intimidation got

moved application through Ramchander Rao, Ex.employee for his appointment in the Respondent company as

dependent of Mr. Ramachander Rao as his son and he obtained the job by adopting the illegal means by furnishing

false information regarding his name and his father’s name and he joined the job in Respondent company as son in

dependent category although he was not ex-employee’s son but he was son-in-law. Workman has taken the plea that

son-in-law also included in the dependent category as per rules of company’s Standing Orders and his appointment

in the employment of Respondent is not illegal. But as discussed above, the workman in this matter has not applied

in the dependent category of son-in-law of Ramchander Rao He applied and got appointment as a son of

Ramachander Rao, Ex.employee. Actually he was not son of Ramachander Rao. Therefore, plea of workman is not

tenable. Thus, from the evidence of witness Smt. Mallamma and MRO report, the contention of the Respondent that

workman has furnished false information regarding his name and his father’s name is proved and it is major

misconduct under the company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 and 25.10 which the workman has committed. This also

pertinent to mention here that during the enquiry workman Sri Ramulu alias U. Ramulu examined himself as a

defence witness, wherein, he has stated that he has applied for dependent employment as S/o M. Ramachander Rao,

ex-employee. In cross examination, the delinquent states that the certificate given by MRO is true and also admitted

that the daughter of Late M. Ramachander Rao had married to him. Therefore, from the statement of delinquent

workman during the enquiry it is evident that workman is son-in-law of the ex-employee Late M. Ramachander Rao

whereas he has claimed the employment in the Respondent company as a dependent son of Late M. Ramachander

Rao, by furnishing false information regarding his name as well as his father’s name. Thus, on the basis of the

evidence recorded during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer rightly held workman guilty of charges of misconduct

under company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 and 25.10 for giving false information regarding his name and father’s

name as well as for his fraudulent misconduct which is major one. Therefore, in view of evidence discussed as

above, I find no force in submission made by the workman. Further, workman has relied upon citations discussed as

below:

GM, SCCL Ltd., Mandamarri Divison, Kalyankhani, Adilabad Vs. Mohd. Fareed, reported in 2011(3) ALD 442,

the Hon’ble High Court held, “the Petitioner was under obligation to prove that charge by examining the

persons, who came to the conclusion, or confirmed the opinion that the certificate is fake.”

In above mentioned case facts are that not a single witness was examined in support of the charge by prosecution.

Therefore, facts being different, does not apply in this case. Whereas in the present matter, to prove the charges

against the workman, Presenting Officer has examined the witness in support of charges Sri P. Shyamsundar Reddy

and the Widow of Late M. Ramachander Rao, ex-employee and they have proved the charge levelled against the

workman. Further, verification report was also obtained from the MRO which also proved the fact that workman ‘s

real name and his father’s name is, Uppala Ramulu, S/o Thirupathaiah, hence, workman does not find any help from

this citation in this matter.

Another decision has been cited as of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Vs. Lud Bud Singh, reported in AIR 1972

SC 1031, wherein Apex Court held,

To prove the misconduct the burden of proof lies upon the party when allegations of misconduct are levelled against

a person, it is the primary duty of the person making those allegations to establish the same and not for an accused

to adduce negative evidence to the effect that he is not guilty.”

In the present matter the charges against the workman have been proved during enquiry by the evidence of witness

examined and report of MRO. It is evident that in this case the workman was not asked to produce the evidence in

negative. Therefore, the facts of this case law are different and workman does not find any help of it. Similarly,

other citations also pertains to principle of burden of proof during the enquiry and Enquiry Proceeding has been

conducted by following the principles of natural justice.

12.

Therefore, in view of the discussion in the fore gone paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the

action of Respondent management in dismissing the workman form service on the charge of misconduct as

committed under company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 and 25.10 is just and he is not entitled for relief of

reinstatement.

Thus, Point Nos. II & III are answered accordingly.

13.

Point No.IV: In view of the above, it is clear that the workman has been rightly held guilty for

misconduct. Now, as far as question of imposition of punishment for misconduct is concerned, the reference of the

case law decided by Apex Court given below is relevant:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

423

In the case of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.1841 decided on 20.9.2010 Hon’ble

Apex Court have held:-

“once it is held that domestic inquiry is legal and proper the next question which arises for consideration is as to

whether the punishment imposed on petitioner is just and legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.”

Workman in his petition has contended that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of dismissal ought to

have considered the imposition of proposed punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of

the charges or not. It is also submitted that the workman is suffering severe financial difficulties since his dismissal

from job because the workman is the sole bread winner of his family i.e., wife and children.

14.

On the other hand, the Respondent counsel submitted that the action of the Respondent by dismissing the

Petitioner from service is justified keeping in view of the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct committed by

the workman. In the present matter workman has obtained the employment in Respondent company by fraudulent

means by furnishing false information regarding his name as well as his father’s name by concealing his real name

and father’s name in connection with employment which is a grave and serious misconduct under company’s

Standing Orders. In this context the reference of decision of Apex Court is relevant as discussed below:-

Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2911 OF 2022 M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. Shri Rajendra

D. Harmalkar 2022 SCC 486 have held,

“ In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for

producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is

one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged marksheet/certificate, that too, at the

initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had

any bearing on the employment or not is immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The

question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in

imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.”

15. As in the above decision, similarly, in the present matter the workman for obtaining employment in

Respondent company has furnished false information regarding his name as well as his father’s name while

concealing his real name. Thereby he obtained the job by act of misrepresentation and Respondent was justified in

imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.

16.

As far as interference in the order of the punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority is concerned, Hon’ble

Apex Court, in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another reported in Air 2005 SC 584,

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“ the Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural

impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral

standards. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the

conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.” …. “In the instant case, services of the bank

employee of Regional Rural Bank were terminated on ground that he had unauthorisedly withdrawn amount from

bank.”

17.

Undisputedly both the charges of misconduct under company’s Standing Orders 25.1 and 25.10 against the

workman were held proved in departmental enquiry. One can not possibly argue that charges aforementioned were

simple in nature. In other words, both the charges were of serious in nature. So far as charges are concerned, he has

furnished false information about his name as well as his father’s name in connections with employment in the

company at the initial stage of service and thus, he has cheated the company with misrepresentation and adopted

fraudulent means in obtaining the employment in the Respondent company by act of impersonation as well as

misrepresenting him to Respondent company as son of Late M. Ramachander Rao, ex-employee, whereas he was

actually the son-in-law of Late M. Ramachander Rao, ex-employee. Therefore, he has also committed act of fraud

with company, further he also furnished false information regarding his own name and father’s name in connection

with the employment by concealing his and his father’s actual name. Therefore, I am of the considered view that

both the charges are being serious in nature, deserve major punishment of dismissal and the punishment order of

dismissal passed against the workman by the Disciplinary Authority can not be faulted with and nor it can be said

that in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. There is no extenuating circumstances to show that the

punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges and not commensurate to the misconduct proved against

workman. Alleged misconducts are admittedly of major in nature according to certified Standing Orders of the

company and considering the seriousness of the misconduct. In other words, the punishment of dismissal of

workman is proportionate with the gravity of the charges levelled and proved against him and hence, deserves to be

upheld and Petition of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.IV is answered accordingly.

ORDER:

In view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by Apex Court, the action of the Respondent

management in terminating the Petitioner workman Sri Menthaboina Ramulu (real name Sri Uppala Ramulu) from

424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service is hereby held legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement as he

prayed for and petition is dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

6^th day of June, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 178.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj हसंगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंपनी जलजमटेड 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; िैिराबाि,ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 44 /2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2024.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 30th Janaury, 2024

S.O. 178.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/01/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -

Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 4^th day of December, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 44/2007

Between:

Sri D. Raj Kumar,

S/o D. Lingaiah,

C/o A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No.G7,

Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,

Opp: Badruka Jr. college for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

425

AND

The Director (P & P),

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The General Manager,

The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri, Adilabad District.

The Colliery Manager /

Superintendent of Mines,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

KK-2 Incline, Mandamarri,

Adilabad District.

….Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri D. Raj Kumar, who worked as Clerk (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

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

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

The brief averments of the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as under:-

It is submitted that while Petitioner was working as Clerk in the 1^st Respondent company a charge sheet dated

24.8.98 was issued, certain irregularities for which Petitioner submitted his explanation. Having satisfied with the

explanation, no further action was initiated. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 5.3.99 was issued alleging that some

irregularities were found by Internal Audit Department, during their verification of LTC/LLTC pay sheets for the

period from 1995 to 1998. On receipt of the said charge sheet, Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the

charges and without considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner , an enquiry was conducted, wherein,

Petitioner was not given any opportunity, much less valid in nature. During the enquiry, it was alleged that Petitioner

prepared pay sheets of Coal Fillers and committed in some irregularities intentionally. But, a bare perusal of the

charges alleged and the evidence on record clearly indicate that there was no intentional lapse on the part of the

Petitioner and the mistakes occurred owing to work pressure. It is to submit that there is no charge of

misappropriation or mis-utilization of funds. The charge alleged against the Petitioner was while preparing the

LTC/LLTC pay sheets, Petitioner did not observe the availability of leave, eligibility for the 12 workers. A bare

perusal of allegations of management representative during the course of enquiry would go to show that allegations

made against the Petitioner were of pure procedural mistakes. The allegations made against the Petitioner pertains to

12 workmen, while preparing the pay sheets for thousands of cases of workmen, during his tenure as pay sheet Clerk.

It is to humbly submit that while participating in the enquiry, Petitioner categorically pleaded that the mistakes

occurred while preparing the LTCLLTC pay sheets, were only due to oversight, but not intentional. He also explained

that in most of the cases there was no mistaken payment. Without verifying the records properly, the charge sheet was

issued to him. The Petitioner prays to treat the statement given by him before the Enquiry Officer be treated as part

and parcel of this petition also as the Petitioner is voiding the same for brevity. While appraising the evidence,

enquiry officer did not consider the submission made by the Petitioner in proper perspective and the defense of the

Petitioner was completely ignored on the pretext of "it is a lame excuse". It is submitted that there is no contra

evidence on record, to ignore the submissions put forth by the Petitioner . The mistake occurred by over Sight ought

not have been treated as misconduct under Company Standing Order No.25.1. It is to humbly submit that no other

witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer except the management representative and the Petitioner . The

management representative cannot be treated as witness. Therefore, simply because management representative

alleged that intentionally the Petitioner paid LTC/LLTC to the 12 ineligible workmen, the submissions of the

Petitioner cannot be given a go bye. As a matter of fact, Petitioner was not given the opportunity of either cross

examining the management representative or producing witnesses on his side, neither the procedure of enquiry was

explained nor the documents relied upon were furnished to the Petitioner at any point of time. The Enquiry Officer

proceeded with a preconceived notion, as if, the Petitioner is guilty of charges. It is submitted that the management

representative and the Enquiry Officer exclusively relying upon the report of the internal audit, the charges were

426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

treated as proved, but no such report was either furnished to the Petitioner either before or during the course of

enquiry, nor the same was marked during the course of enquiry. Even, the deposition of the Petitioner , was neither

doubted nor contradicted during the course of enquiry. The defense put forth by the Petitioner was not proved as

wrong. As a pay sheet clerk, Petitioner has prepared the pay sheets of workmen of their LTC/LLTC every month.

In that process, some mistakes might have occurred. In those days there were no computers, every work was to be

done manually. Therefore, such mistakes occurred by over sight ought not to have been treated as deliberate in nature.

It is submitted that no malafides were attributed to the Petitioner. Therefore, the question of intentional Payments,

does not arise. However, as the charges alleged against the Petitioner does not have any charge of misappropriation,

no further action was taken on the enquiry conducted basing on charge sheet dated 5.5.99. It is submitted that., while

so, another charge sheet dated 5.1.2000 was issued alleging habitual absenteeism from April'99 to December'99 and

an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, Petitioner categorically pleaded that as he was suffering with back

pain, he has taken treatment in company's hospital and also in the private hospital. As a result, he could only work for

60 days during the year 1999. When, the statement of the Petitioner was not doubted, it should be treated as if such

statement was accepted by the management. It is submitted that subsequent to the recording of statement by the

Petitioner , the Enquiry Officer should explain to the delinquent employee about the opportunity to lead evidence on

his behalf and permit the delinquent employee to examine witnesses on his behalf. But, in the instant case, no such

opportunity was given to the Petitioner. As a result of the above improper conduct of enquiry, Petitioner was greatly

prejudiced, resulting in issuance of order of dismissal from service. It is submitted that had the Enquiry Officer

explained the procedure of enquiry, permitted the Petitioner to cross-examine the management witnesses, permitted

the Petitioner to lead evidence, Petitioner could have participated in the enquiry more effectively and the necessity of

issuance of impugned order of dismissal could not have been arisen. Even otherwise also, the Enquiry Officer, while

preparing his report, has not considered any of the submissions made by the Petitioner. When the Petitioner 's

evidence was not doubted, the absenteeism alleged ought not to have been treated as unauthorized absenteeism

without sufficient cause. The way the Enquiry Officer appraised the evidence shows that he was predetermined to

hold the Petitioner as guilty of charges. The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner was absent frequently

is outside the scope of evidence on record. Further, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner convinced

to admit his guilt unconditionally in the presence of management representative also beyond the scope of evidence on

record. As a matter of fact, Petitioner categorically pleaded the reasons for his inability to perform duties during

1999. Despite, holding as if the Petitioner has admitted the guilt, shows that the Enquiry Officer was predetermined

to hold the Petitioner as guilty. As a matter of fact, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are wholly perverse. It is

submitted that consequent upon the conclusion of enquiry conducted in pursuance of charge sheet dated 5.1.2000 , the

proceedings pertains to the earlier charge sheets dated 24.8.1998 and 5.5.99 were once again revived suo motto and

by referring all the three charge sheets dated 24.8.1998 and 5.5.99 and 5.1.2000, the Petitioner was dismissed from

service vide office order dated 16.11.2000. It is submitted that, having issued the charge sheets the Respondent s

have chosen not to proceed further in pursuance of charge sheets dated 24.8.1998 and 5.5.99. But, while dealing with

the charge sheet dated 5.1.2000 , the earlier charge sheets cannot be revived and basing on all those charge sheets

Petitioner cannot be dismissed from service. It is further submitted that while issuing the impugned order dated

16.11.2000, the first Respondent has not considered the submissions made by the Petitioner independently. He

proceeded to rely upon the reports of the Enquiry Officer, ignoring the pleadings of the Petitioner. While considering

reports of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to apply his mind independently and come to a

conclusion. But, in the instant case, a bare perusal of impugned order indicate that Disciplinary Authority has not

considered the evidence on record independently and simply relying upon the reports of the Enquiry Officer, a cryptic

and unreasoned order was passed holding the Charges alleged against the Petitioner are proved, hence, Petitioner is

liable be dismissed from service. Such an on action on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is wholly unjustifiable.

Be that as it may, finding of the Disciplinary Authority that he could not find extenuating circumstances to take

lenient view, except the dismissal from service also unjustifiable, as, having been appointed in the first Respondent

company in the year 1982, Petitioner had no adverse remarks at any point of time. Even in the instant case also the

allegations made against the Petitioner were of irregularities occurred on account of workload and that absenteeism

caused owing to his illness. Therefore, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that he could not find any extenuating

circumstances on consideration of past record of the Petitioner also is unjustifiable. It is submitted that assuming

without admitting that the charges alleged against the Petitioner are rightly held proved by the Enquiry Officer, even

then, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the Petitioner would be highly disproportionate to the charges alleged.

In any case, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that the charges alleged against the Petitioner are rightly held

proved by the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to modify the punishment from

that of dismissal from service to that of any other lesser punishment, so as to enable the Petitioner to survive. The

Petitioner is a sole breadwinner in his family, as a result of dismissal from service, Petitioner and his family are

facing hardships and starvation, Petitioner remained without any employment from the date of his dismissal from

service and spending the day at the mercy of one and all. The Petitioner is not able to provide two square meals a day

to his family, the education of his children has already come to a standstill. It is therefore prayed to declare the

office order No.E.10/4201/IR/2952 dated l6.11.2000 issued by the 1^st Respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set

aside the same, consequently direct the Respondent s to re-instate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other

consequential benefits.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

427

Reply statement filed by the Respondents denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:-

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed on dated 1.7.1982. He was working as clerk Grade-I and was

looking after the pay sheet preparation of coal fillers of K K2 Incline. During the verification of records by the audit

department, it was revealed that the Petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.15,245.22. Towards wages to 20 coal fillers

and Badli coal fillers, even though they did not book their ‘IN’ and ‘OUT’ muster in the C-register. Further, it is

submitted that it was also revealed that the Petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.870-34 ps. towards 20 Coal fillers

and Badli Coal fillers, even though these employees were on special leave and not eligible for such payment for a

relevant period. Since the Petitioner had paid intentionally excess amounts to the workmen, though they were not

eligible for such payments, he was charge sheeted vide No.K2/50/98/2387 dated 24.8.98 .On receipt of the

chargesheet, the Petitioner submitted his written explanation dated nil. accepting his mistake, the contention of the

Petitioner that having satisfied with his explanation no further action was initiated is not correct. In fact, enquiry

into the charges levelled against the Petitioner was fixed on 1/12/1998 and at the request of the Petitioner, the

enquiry officer held further proceedings on 16 .2.1999 and on 27/4/2000 and the Petitioner fully participated in the

enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that as per the report of the inquiry officer, the charge levelled was proved. The

Petitioner was supplied copy of enquiry report proceedings but he did not submit any representation. While so,

during verification of LTC and LLTC records for the period 1995 to 1998 by internal audit department, it was noticed

that the Petitioner prepared Pay sheets and allowed payment towards LTC and LLTC to 12 employees in violation of

the stipulations governing LTC and LLTC. This being a serious misconduct, the Petitioner was charge sheeted while

charge sheet No.K2/50/99/1655 dated 5.5.1999 under company Standing orders No.25.1. It is submitted that in this

charge sheet also enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer giving full and fair opportunity to the Petitioner and

the Petitioner fully participated in the enquiry. As per the report of the inquiry officer, the charge levelled was

proved and the Petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was supplied copy of enquiry,

report and proceedings etc., vide letter dated 13.7.2000 but he did not submit any representation. At this juncture, the

Petitioner remained habitually absent to duties during the year 2000. He had put in only 60 masters during the entire

year which is constituted misconduct under company standing orders. He was charged, seated under Class 25.25 of

standing orders vide charge sheet dated 5.1.2000 and the Petitioner was not attending to duties, the charge sheet was

sent to his residential address and as the same was written and delivered, it was published in Telugu daily, Andhra

Jyothi dated 23.3.2000. Inquiry was held on 31/3/2000 and the Petitioner took part in the proceedings fully and he

was given every opportunity to conduct. It is submitted that as per the report of the inquiry officer, the charge was

proved and the Petitioner was held guilty of misconduct under company standing orders number 25.25. The

Petitioner was supplied copy of inquiry report proceedings while letter dated 15.5.2000 and the Petitioner submitted

his representation dated 26.5.2000 which was considered to be not satisfactory. It is submitted that the Petitioner did

not submit his written explanation to charge sheet dated.5.5.1999 and this was admitted by him during the course of

inquiry also. Hence, his claim that he submitted his written explanation denying the charges incorrect. The further

contention of the Petitioner that during the course of enquiry, he was not given any opportunity, much less valid in

nature , to is incorrect and hence denied. The Petitioner participated fully in all the three inquiries and he was

given full and fair opportunity to conduct his defence. The Petitioner intentionally made payments towards LTC

and LLTC. Though the employees concerned were not eligible and hence his contention that it was not intentional

and that there was no misappropriation, etcetera is denied. The further contention of the Petitioner that due to work

pressure, the mistake had taken place and that these are procedural mistakes also incorrect. The Petitioner , being

senior clerk and having full knowledge of the procedure to be followed with regard to the eligibility of for LTC and

LLTC and how the payment is to be calculated etc.. allowed LTC and LLTC payments to 12 employees, though they

were not eligible for the same. He allowed LTC and LLTC both in the same year, without sanction of leave for 6

days and 7 days, which is the precondition for payment of LTC and LLTC amount respectively. It is submitted that

Petitioner allowed LTC and LLTC to 6 employees and the leave entries 2 were not found in the Leave register and

LTC Ledger. Further, in respect of 4 more employees, though, the employees concerned have to avail 7 days leave

with pay for LLTC and 6 days leave with pay for LTC as per the stipulated guidelines the Petitioner allowed the

LLTC and LTC payments even though they availed less number of days of leave with pay. Though the Petitioner

deliberately and intentionally allowed payments, violating the LTC and LLTC rules, his claim that the mistake was

not intentionally got no merits and deserves no consideration the Petitioner allowed wrong payment of LTC and

LLTC amounts to 12 employees. Though he was working as patient clerk for 3 years, oversight can be in one or 2

cases but not 12 employees and these payments were made violating the LTC and LLTC rules. Further, the Petitioner

should have entered their leave availed position in the Leave register and also in the LTC and LLTC record, but he

did not do this intentionally. It is submitted that without recording the leave availed position in relevant records and

violating the guidelines of LTC and LLTC, the Petitioner allowed payments and still contends that the mistake was

oversight and it should not be considered as misconduct. It is submitted that the management representative

submitted all the relevant records at the time of inquiry and these recorded evidences clearly established the violations

committed by the Petitioner and hence the inquiry officer considered these evidences as valid. The further

contentions of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not given the opportunity of either cross examining the

management representative or producing witnesses on his side, and inquiry procedure was not explained and that

documents relied were not furnished are all denied. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry proceedings following

428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

all the principles of natural justice, the inquiry officer explained the inquiry procedure for which the Petitioner got

satisfied and affixed his signature on the proceedings, the inquiry officer offered the opportunity to cross examine the

management witness, but the Petitioner refused to cross examine management witness and the documents submitted

by management witness were shown to the Petitioner . The inquiry officer held the inquiry proceedings following all

the principles of natural justice, and hence the contention of the Petitioner , that the inquiry officer proceeded with a

preconceived notion, as if the Petitioner is guilty of the charges, is incorrect. It is submitted that the mistakes

committed by the Petitioner were brought out by the internal audit department during the verification of records

undertaken by them and on the basis of such audit report, the Petitioner was issued charge sheets dated 24.8.1998 and

dated 5.5.1999 and inquiry into the charges leveled against the Petitioner was conducted during the course of inquiry.

The relevant records were produced by management, witnesses and the Petitioner , who participated in the inquiry on

the basis of evidence on record, the inquiry officer submitted his reports as the records clearly established the

misconduct committed by the Petitioner and as the Petitioner also admitted his mistake during the course of inquiry,

the inquiry officer submitted his report holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him under S.Os

No. 25.1, but not solely on the basis of internal audit department as alleged by the Petitioner , the violations pointed

out by the audit department were mentioned in the charge sheet and hence there is no requirement of furnishing audit

report to the Petitioner . The Petitioner did not choose to cross examine the management witness in the inquiry into

the charges levelled against the Petitioner vide charge sheet dated 5.5.1999 and it can be concluded that it was the

Petitioner who did not doubt the statements of the management witnesses. In fact, the management witness cross

examined the Petitioner and during the cross examination, the Petitioner admitted his mistake. As already submitted

mistake may take place in one or 2 cases, but the Petitioner committed mistake in respect of 12 candidates and

committed the same, violating the stipulated guidelines despite the fact that he was fully aware of the guidelines and

hence the mistake was intentional. The charge levelled against the Petitioner was fraud and dishonesty and the

contention of the Petitioner that since he was not charged of misappropriation, no further action was taken on the

charges levelled in charge sheet dated 5.5.1999 is incorrect and untenable. The Act committed by the Petitioner is

misconduct under company standing orders and it is proved in the course of inquiry and on the basis of gravity and

seriousness of the misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty and for such action the charge need not be

misappropriation. It is submitted that Petitioner had put in 60 Masters only during the year 1999 and remained

absent, unauthorizedly on other days in the year. It is submitted that this act of the Petitioner constituted misconduct,

mistake under companies standing orders, he was issued charge sheet under standing Orders Clause number 25.25.

During the course of inquiry, he himself admitted that he worked for 60 days only and remained absent without leave

or sufficient cause. The Petitioner submitted that he suffered from back pain and took treatment in company hospital

and Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad. But he could not establish the same with valid documentary evidence except

making a statement that he reported sick vide Certificate number 17946 from 21.12.1999 to 3.1.2000. Even if this

treated as correct and the period of sickness from 21.12.99 to 3.1.2000 is deleted from absents also the charge for the

other days covered in the charge sheet remains established. The contention of the Petitioner is that his statement was

not doubted, if the Petitioner was under the impression that his statement was not doubted, he should have

represented the same when he was supplied copy of enquiry report and enquiry proceedings, giving them an

opportunity to make representations, if any, on the inquiry report. It is submitted that the inquiry officer had

explained the inquiry procedure at the commencement of proceedings to the Petitioner . Before closing the inquiry

proceedings, the Enquiry Officer specifically had written at Page number 5 of the inquiry process of the inquiry

proceedings that “enquiry into the charge sheet under reference is closed as there are no more witnesses for

examination. This clearly indicates the fact that the inquiry officer has explained clearly the inquiry procedure to the

Petitioner and offered opportunity to him to submit witnesses and documentary evidence on his behalf, but he did not

avail the opportunity extended by the inquiry officer. It is submitted that the Petitioner remained absent and the

documentary evidence submitted by the management witnesses established this fact and it was for the Petitioner to

substantiate his contention of back pain with valid documentary evidence. But the Petitioner failed to do so. When

the Petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence in support of ailment the doubting his evidence does not

arise, hence the contention of the Petitioner that the alleged absenteeism ought not to have been treated as

unauthorized absenteeism without sufficient cause is untenable. Inquiry officer conducted the proceedings following

principles of natural justice and on the basis of documentary evidence on record only. He submitted his report. The

allegation of the Petitioner that the inquiry officer was predetermined to hold the Petitioner as guilty of the charges is

incorrect. The paid pay sheets and H - registers are the apt records to establish the attendance particulars, leave

availed loss of pay, leave availed, absents and the days for which salary was paid to the Petitioner . On the basis of

these records, only the inquiry officer submitted his report and the Petitioner did not dispute these records at the time

of inquiry and now claims that the findings of the inquiry officer are outside the scope of the evidence. It is submitted

that the Petitioner pleaded that he was suffering from back pain, but he did not submit any evidence in support of this

claim and at the Petitioner claims that his submission should taken as granted for all purposes when the other

recorded evidence is establishing the charge levelled clearly. It is submitted that the Petitioner was issued charge

sheet dated 24.8.1998, 5.5.1999 on the charge of theft, fraud or dishonesty under S.Os No. 25.1 and charge sheet

dated 5.1.2000 was issued on the charge of habitual absenteeism under S.Os.No. 25.25. In all these three charge

sheets, inquiry proceedings and also subsequent formalities that is supply of copy of inquiry, report proceedings,

etc..could be completed during the year 2000 and hence the contention of the Petitioner that having issued charge

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

429

sheets and the Respondent s chose not to proceed further in respect of charge sheets dated 24.8.98 and 5.5.99 is

incorrect. Since the conduct of inquiry and other formalities in all the three charge sheets had completed

simultaneously, and as the charges levelled in all the three charge sheets, being serious in nature and proved against

the Petitioner , the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority

had gone into the details of the case and also the proceedings and reports in all the charge sheets and having satisfied

that this proceedings were conducted by the inquiry officer following principles of natural justice and that the

evidences on records produced by the management witnesses established the charges clearly, and the Petitioner

failed to establish his innocence of the charges levelled and also did not substantiate his stands with evidences and

passed the order of dismissal. The condition of the Petitioner that the regularities occurred due to workload and that

absenteeism was due to illness is denied. If the Petitioner was really overburdened, he should have informed his

difficulties to the head of the mine and he did not do so at any point of time. He's being a regular and responsible

employee should have communicated his inability to attend to his duties, to the head of the mine and should have got

leave sanctioned or loss of pay leave. He was holding the post of a clerk and maintains the leaves, pay bills, etc..of

the Workman and he was well aware of the procedures to be followed, yet he did not follow any of these procedures

and claims that his submissions were not considered and his illness should have been taken into account on the basis

of his statement alone, without being supported by documentary evidence. Since the charges in all the 3 charge sheets

were proved and as they being serious in nature, the Respondent No.1 found no extenuating circumstances in

awarding lesser punishment while issuing the punishment order dated 16.11.2000 and hence the punishment of

dismissal is the suitable and appropriate punishment. The charges levelled and proved are serious in nature and the

intention of the Petitioner was not conducive to the interests of workmen and also to that of Respondent component

and hence the punishment of dismissal is suitable and appropriate punishment. If the Petitioner is the sole

breadwinner of his family, he should have discharged his duties with commitment and without any deviation of laid

down guidelines. In view of the above, it is sprayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

In view of the memo filed by the counsel for Petitioner not to challenge the legality of domestic enquiry, it is

held legal and valid vide order dated 6.3.2009.

Heard the arguments. Perused the record.

6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the both the parties, following issues emerge for determination in the

present matter:-

Whether the departmental enquiry held against the Petitioner by the Respondent is legal and valid.

II.

Whether the action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner from service vide order

No.E.10/4201/IR/2952 dated 16.11.2000 is legal and justified?

III.

Whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled

against the him?

IV.

To what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?

Findings:-

Point No.I:-

The validity of domestic enquiry vide order dated 6.3.2009 has been held legal and valid.

Therefore, Point No.I is decided accordingly.

Points No. II & III:- The Petitioner claims that he was working as a clerk in the first Respondent office

since 1982. On 24.8.98 charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he has committed certain irregularities for which

Petitioner submitted his explanation. Being satisfied with the explanation, no action was initiated against him.

Thereafter, charge sheet dated 5.5.99 was issued alleging that some irregularities were found by Internal Audit

Department during their verification of LTC and LLTC pay sheets for the period 1995 to 1998. On receipt of the

said charge sheet Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges. But without considering the explanation

submitted by the Petitioner an enquiry was conducted wherein Petitioner was not given any opportunity, much less

valid in nature. It was the allegation against the Petitioner that he prepared pay sheets of coal fillers and committed

some irregularities in the pay sheets intentionally. But the Petitioner claims that there was no intentional lapse on the

part of the Petitioner and mistake occurred owing to work pressure. Further, it is submitted that, there was no

misappropriation or mis-utilization of the funds. The charge levelled against the Petitioner was that while preparing

the LTC and LLTC pay sheets, Petitioner did not observe the availability of leave eligibility for the 12 workers but

there was only purely procedural mistake. Petitioner categorically pleaded during the enquiry that the mistake

occurred due to oversight but not intentional, and also explained that in most of the cases there was no mistaken

payment. Without verifying the records properly, the charge sheet was issued to him. The enquiry officer did not

consider the submission made by the Petitioner in proper prospective and the defence of the Petitioner was

completely ignored on the pretext of “It is a lame excuse” and that there is no contra evidence on record to ignore the

submissions put forth by the Petitioner and no other witness was examined by the Enquiry officer except the

Management representative and the Petitioner, whereas the Management Representative cannot be treated as a

430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

witness. The Enquiry Officer has exclusively relied upon the report of the internal audit and held charges were

treated as proved. But no such report was either furnished to the Petitioner either before or during the course of the

enquiry, nor the same was marked during the course of inquiry. The deposition of the Petitioner was neither doubted

nor contradicted during the course of the enquiry.

Further Petitioner submits that another charge sheet dated 5.1.2000 was issued alleging habitual absenteeism

from April 1999 to December, 1999 and enquiry was conducted during the enquiry Petitioner categorically pleaded

that he was suffering with back pain and he has taken treatment in company’s hospital and also in private hospital

and as a result he could work for 60 days during the year 1999 and when the statement of the Petitioner was not

doubted, it should be treated as if such a statement was accepted by the management. The enquiry officer should

explain to the delinquent employee about the opportunity to lead evidence on his behalf and permit the delinquent

employee to examine witnesses on his behalf. But in the instant case, no such opportunity was given to the

Petitioner. As a result of the improper conduct of inquiry Petitioner was greatly prejudiced, resulting in issuance of

order of dismissal from service. Further, it is contended that had the enquiry officer explained the procedure of

enquiry, permitted the Petitioner to cross examine the management witnesses, permitted the Petitioner to lead

evidence, Petitioner could have participated in the inquiry more effectively and the necessity of issuance of the

impugned order of dismissal could not have been arisen. The inquiry officer while preparing his report, has not

considered any of the submissions made by the Petitioner. When the Petitioner ’s evidence was not doubted, the

absenteeism alleged ought not to have been treated as unauthorised absenteeism without sufficient cause. The way

the Enquiry officer appraised the evidence shows that he was pre-determined to hold the Petitioner as guilty of the

charges. The finding of the enquiry officer that the Petitioner was absent frequently is outside the scope of evidence

on record.

10.

Further, Petitioner submitted that consequent upon the conclusion of enquiry conducted in pursuance of

charge sheet dated 5.1.2000, the proceedings pertains to the earlier charge sheets dated 24.8.1988, 5.5.99 were once

again revived Suo motto and by referring all the three charge sheets dated 24.8.98, 5.5.99 and 5.1.2000. The

Petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order dated 16.11.2000. It is further contended that having issued

the charge sheet the Respondent has chosen not to proceed further in pursuance of charge sheets dated 24.8.1988,

5.5.99, but while dealing with charge sheet dated 5.1.2000, the earlier charge sheets cannot be revived and basing on

all those charge sheets Petitioner cannot be dismissed from service. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has not

considered the evidence on record independently and simply relying upon the report of the Enquiry Officer a cryptic

and unreasoned order was passed, holding charges against the Petitioner are proved as and Petitioner was dismissed

from service, such an action on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is wholly unjustifiable.

11.

On the other hand, Respondent contended that the Petitioner was issued charge sheets dated 24.8.1988 and

5.5.99 on the charge of theft, fraud and dishonesty under Standing Orders No.25.1 and the charge sheet dated

5.1.2000 was issued on the charge of habitual absenteeism, under Standing Orders No.25.25. In all these three

charge sheets enquiry proceedings also conducted and also subsequent formalities, i.e., supply of copy of enquiry

report, enquiry proceedings etc.. Since the aforesaid proceeding could be completed during the year 2000 and hence

the contention of the Petitioner that having issued charge sheets the Respondent choose not to proceed further in

respect of charge sheets dated 24.8.1988, 5.5.99 is incorrect. Further, Respondent contended that since the enquiry

proceedings and all the formalities in all the three charge sheets had completed simultaneously and as the charges

levelled against in all the three charge sheets being serious in nature and proved against the Petitioner, the

Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Further, it is contended that disciplinary

authority had gone into the details of the case and also the proceedings and reports in all the charge sheets and having

satisfied with the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice and that the

evidence on records produced by the management witnesses established the charges clearly and Petitioner failed to

establish his innocence of the charges levelled and also did not substantiate his stands with evidences and passed the

order of dismissal. The contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 did not consider the evidence on record

independently and simply relied on the reports of the Enquiry Officer is denied.

12.

In view of the submissions made by both the parties, perused the record pertaining to the enquiry

proceedings. The record goes to reveal that the Petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 24.8.98 for the violation

of the Standing orders No.25.1 for committing misconduct and it was alleged that while he was posted as a clerk, he

paid the wages to the tune of Rs.15,245.22 ps. to the workers even though they did not have any ‘IN’ and ‘OUT’

musters in the ‘C’ register and he also paid underground allowance to a tune of Rs.870.34 ps to the workers even

though they are on special leave. In respect of the said charge, enquiry proceeding was initiated by enquiry officer

and witnesses were examined i.e., S/Sri .M. Mallikarjuna Rao and D. Anand Kumar who have proved charges

levelled against Petitioner. The cross examination opportunity was extended to the Petitioner, but nothing could be

elicited to discredit or disbelieve the testimony of the Management witness. Furthermore, Petitioner Sri D. Raj

Kumar, Clerk has also examined himself as witness in defence. Petitioner Sri D. Raj Kumar, in cross examination on

behalf of the management, in reply to the question No.5 admitted that he had paid wages to 17 workmen. The

delinquent Petitioner denied to produce any other witness or documents. The enquiry was concluded and Enquiry

Officer after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, has recorded reasoned enquiry report thereby

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

431

holding Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Further, enquiry report, was served upon the Petitioner

vide acknowledgement paper No.21.

13.

In the matter of the charge sheet dated 5.5.99 it was served upon the Petitioner for the misconduct

committed by him under the company’s Standing Orders No.25.1 on the basis of Internal Audit report that the

irregularities were found in the LTC/LLTC pay sheets of workman for the period 1995 to 1998 and also in other

relevant records, while he was posted as a Pay Sheet clerk. The chargesheet served was got received by the

delinquent. The management in enquiry proceeding examined witnesses who proved the facts that the Petitioner,

while he was posted as Pay Sheet Clerk, has committed the irregularities in regard to the payment of LTC/LLTC to

the Workmen. The documentary as well as oral evidence was adduced by the Management in support of the charge

levelled against the Petitioner. Petitioner was extended opportunity of cross examination of witnesses and he also

examined himself in defence. In his cross examination , Petitioner admitted that he has committed mistake

misconduct in preparation of the pay sheet for payment of LTC and LLTC to the Workmen, who are not eligible and

also admitted that he has not entered the leave availability position in the connected registers. He admitted that it was

his mistake which was committed due to our sight. Therefore, in this matter also he was held guilty of committing

misconduct under Standing Orders No. 25.1.

14.

Further, the Charge sheet dated 5.1.2000 was served upon the Petitioner for violation of Company Standing

Orders No.25.25 which pertains to the habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty on various dates. It was

alleged in the charge sheet against the Petitioner that he has put in only 60 attendance musters during the year 1999.

In the said enquiry, charge sheet was served and same was acknowledged by him. The charges and enquiry

procedure were explained to him and reasonable opportunity off hearing was accorded by following principles of

natural justice. During the enquiry proceeding, Petitioner admitted the fact that he had worked only 60 days in the

year 1999 and remained absent from duty without sufficient leave and without sufficient cause. But he did not

produce any documentary evidence of justifiable reason as he pleaded for his unauthorised absence from duty. After

conclusion of enquiry proceeding he was held guilty of the of committing misconduct under clause 25.25.

Furthermore, the enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer in all the three

cases was served upon the delinquent employee and the same was acknowledged by him. After considering all three

afore mentioned reports of the Enquiry Officers and examining the evidence collected during the enquiry proceedings

as well as explanation submitted by the Petitioner in all three cases the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated

16.4.2000.

15. As regards to first charge sheet Petitioner did not submit any explanation, but regarding other two charge

sheets, he had filed his explanation. Disciplinary Authority on the basis of enquiry report and considering material

on record which can not be faulted with passed reasoned order. That the charges levelled and proved against the

Petitioner being grave and serious, the punishment warranted is that dismissal. The Disciplinary Authority vide

order dated 16.4.2000 also mentioned that the Authority has gone through past record of the Petitioner and found

there were no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter. Thus, the order of dismissal of the

Petitioner from the company service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

16.

In view of the fore gone discussion, it can be safely concluded that no fault of any nature is found in the all

three Disciplinary proceedings i.e., Departmental enquiry against Petitioner for one or more reasons. The Petitioner

was afforded fair opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceeding which he availed and he failed to justify

his alleged misconduct upon Company Standing Orders No.25.25 & 25.1. The Petitioner failed to prove and

establish that domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapse or conducted in violation of the principles of

natural justice which prejudiced the Petitioner. Once it is held, that domestic enquiry was held legal and proper, the

next question is for consideration in this matter that whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner, is just and

legal or it is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It is undisputed fact that all the charges alleged and

levelled against Petitioner vide charge sheets dated 24.8.98, 5.5.99 and 5.1.2000 held proved in domestic enquiry

and the Petitioner was found guilty of committing misconduct under the Company’s Standing Orders No.25.1, 25.1

and 25.25 respectively. The repeated misconduct committed by Petitioner reflects that he is habitual of committing

misconducts again and again. The charges levelled against the Petitioner vide charge sheets dated 24.8.98 and

5.5.99 pertains to the financial matters of the Company which are of grave and serious nature, whereas in respect of

charges of misconduct under clause 25.25 of the Company Standing Order of unauthorized absenteeism from the duty

during the year 1999, he could not furnish any justifiable and sufficient explanation.

17.

Thus, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that all the three charges being serious in nature as

the Petitioner was habitual in committing misconduct. The order of dismissal from service of the Petitioner passed

by the Disciplinary Authority, cannot be faulted with nor it can be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled

against him. In other words, punishment of dismissal of the Petitioner from service was proportionate to the gravity

of charges and hence deserves to be upheld.

Thus, Points No. I & II are answered accordingly.

432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18.

Point No.IV :- In view of the finding given in Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief

as prayed for and Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, this Point is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, and finding arrived at Points I to IV, I am of the considered view that dismissal

order dated 16.4.2000 passed against the Petitioner Sri D. Raj Kumar, Clerk by the Respondent is proportionate to the

charges and the petition of the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. As such, the Petition is

dismissed as devoid of merits.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

4^th day of December, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 179.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj हसंगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंपनी जलजमटेड 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; िैिराबाि, ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

86 /2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/154/2012.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 179.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/154/2012 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20^th day of October, 2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

433

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 86/2012

Between:

The Dy. General Secretary,

(Shri Peddapalli Satyanarayana)

Singareni Collieries Labour Union (TNTUC)

Qr.No.MD-7/J, Millennium Colony,

Ganganagar, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar Dist., A.P..-505209.

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam – I Area,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar Dist.,

Andhra Pradesh – 505 209.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 22012/ 154/2012-IR(CM.II) dated

16.11.2012 referred the following dispute under section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference

is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Chief General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I

Area, Godavarikhani in awarding punishment of reduction of 2 SPRAs with cumulative effect vide order

No.RG.I/Per/S/46/4215, dated 21.7.2011 in respect of Shri Bandari Shankar, Coal Filler, GDK-I & 2 Inc., is

justified or not? To what relief the employee in question is entitled for?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 86/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that, Sri Bandari Shanker (EC No.0905828), Coal Filler, GDK-I Incline, Singareni Collieries Company

Limited, RG-I Area. Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District is a member of our Union. It is to submit that the concerned

workman was issued with a charge sheet dt.28-07-2005 under Company's Standing Order No.25 (1) & 25 (10) (a)

alleging that one Sri K.Srinivas obtained employment claiming himself as son-in-law of late Sri Uppuleti Mondi, Ex-

Coal Filler, GDK-3 Incline and that the concerned workman signed as one of the witnesses on the application

submitted by the widow of Late Uppuleti Mondi. On receipt of the above charge sheet, the workman has submitted

his explanation denying the charge. However, without considering the submissions made by the concerned

workman, an enquiry was conducted, wherein he was not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. The

whole enquiry was conducted with a preconceived notion that the concerned workman is guilty of charges. In this

regard, it is submitted that, Sri Uppuleti Mondi, who was working as Coal Filler at GDK-3 Incline expired while in

service. As such, his widow Smt. Uppuleti Gangamma submitted an application, requesting to appoint her son-in-law

Sri K.Srinivas under dependent employment quota. The application submitted by Smt Uppuleti Gangamma was

countersigned by the concerned workman and also one Sri A.Rayalingu as witness. Consequently, an Enquiry

Committee conducted a thorough enquiry with regard to the authenticity of claim of Sri K.Srinivas as son-in-law and

after satisfying with his status, he was given dependent employment. It is submitted that, it is a known fact that

neither the concerned workman nor his assistant were aware of procedure of enquiry, however, the procedure of

enquiry was not explained by the enquiry officer before commencement of enquiry. Though the Presenting Officer

relied upon several documents to substantiate the charge, none of those documents were either shown or furnished

either before or during the course of enquiry. Had the procedure of enquiry was explained, the concerned workman

434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and his assistant, could have understood the procedure of enquiry and ought to have participated in the enquiry

effectively. As a result of not explaining the procedure of enquiry and not furnishing the documents relied on by the

PO, the concerned workman was put to great prejudice. Simply relying on the documents relied on by the Presenting

Officer and deposition of Presenting Officer by recording the statement of the concerned workman, Enquiry Officer

concluded the enquiry. No witness was examined by the Presenting Officer, on his behalf. Basing on such lopsided

enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges as proved and basing on such perverse findings of the enquiry officer, a

show cause notice dt. 13-06-2006 was issued. On receipt of the same, the workman submitted his reply dt.21.6.2006.

However, without considering any of the submissions made by the workman, vide office order dt.21-07-2011, he was

imposed with a penalty of stoppage of SPRAs with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the above, a conciliation was

moved which ended in failure, resulting in the present reference. It is submitted that., as per the circular issued by the

management of SCCL, the proceedings of enquiry are to be conducted in the language known to the delinquent

employee. In the instant case. it is a known fact that the workman was not aware of English language. Despite, the

statement of the management representative was recorded in English and signatures of the concerned workman were

obtained. When he was asked to cross-examine, the workman stated that he feels the statement of the management

representative is not correct. The workman also stated that the documentary evidence produced by the management

representative in the enquiry are not true. It is further submitted that enquiry officer wholly relied upon the documents

collected and report submitted by the vigilance department, but neither those documents were proved in the enquiry

nor any witness was examined on behalf of the vigilance department. It is submitted that, during the course of

enquiry, except the evidence of Presenting Officer, no other witnesses were examined. It is submitted that the

Presenting Officer cannot be treated as a witness, as he has no personal knowledge about the events. The events

narrated by the Presenting Officer and the documents filed by him should be supported by the relevant witnesses.

However, in the instant case, after the evidence of Presenting Officer evidence of the management was closed and

defence evidence was recorded. During the course of defence evidence, the concerned workman categorically

deposed that he personally knew the daughter and widow of the deceased employee i.e. U. Mondi and consequent

upon his unfortunate death, he attended the 10^th day ceremony during which time, the widow of the deceased

employee Smt. Gangamma has introduced her son-in-law i.e. the husband of her daughter Smt. Swapna. In addition,

she has shown the photos, marriage certificates of her daughter and son-in-law and thereafter basing on her request,

he has signed the application submitted by the widow of the deceased employee i.e. Smt. Gangamma as witness. It is

submitted that evidence of the concerned workman remained unrebutted. Unfortunately, ignoring such unrebutted

evidence, the enquiry officer came to a perverse conclusion holding the charge as proved basing on the documents

obtained during the course of preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that, once regular departmental enquiry is

conducted, it is not open for the enquiry officer to rely upon the statements or documents obtained during the course

of preliminary enquiry. It is submitted that the enquiry officer held the charges as proved basing on MEx.1,2, 4 to

MEx.22 and MEx 24. It is not known how the above documents were marked as management exhibits, as no witness

was examined. Without examining the relevant witnesses, the enquiry officer ought not to have marked those

documents. The above procedure adopted by the enquiry officer is wholly unjustifiable and untenable. The findings

of the enquiry officer are not based on any valid evidence on record. To arrive at his finding holding the charge as

proved, the enquiry officer also relied upon exhibit MEx.12 i.e. affidavit of Smt. Gangamma dated 15-6-97 allegedly

obtained by the vigilance authorities. In the instant case, neither Smt. Gangamma nor the vigilance authorities were

examined during the course of enquiry giving opportunity of cross-examination, but reliance was made on MEx.12

to hold the charge as proved, which is untenable. It is further submitted that, enquiry officer further relied upon

MEx.4,5, 17 and 18 to hold that the age of wife of Smt. K. Srinivas was not 23 years as on 25.3.2000. However,

neither Sri K. Srinivas, his wife nor any witnesses connected to those MEx 4,15 and 17 were examined. Further, it is

not known how and at whose instance MEx 13 and 14 were obtained to hold that there is a difference between two

persons and it is not known in what way the said difference is connected to the present case. It is also not known the

details of MEx 19 and 20 which were relied on by the Enquiry Officer, to hold that Sri Srinivas furnished a false and

fabricated information to the Government of AP and to the management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited to

get employment. It is submitted that, while arriving at his findings, enquiry officer held the contents of para (a)' to

(f)' as established facts, but it is not known how, they were treated as established, as no witness has marked those

documents and no valid witness has deposed the above issues, as incorporated in para (a) to (f) of findings of Enquiry

Officer. Be that as it may, those issues' are not part of the charge sheet alleged against the concerned workman.

Even otherwise also, wholly relying on the version of Presiding Officer, Enquiry Officer arrived at his findings,

ignoring the deposition of the concerned workman. All the documents relied on by the Presenting Officer were

obtained behind the back of the concerned workman, by the vigilance department. But neither the vigilance authority

nor any of the relevant persons who were connected with those documents were examined in the enquiry, to prove

those documents. Therefore, the above findings of the enquiry officer are liable to be treated as perverse in nature.

Further, it is to submit that, the contention of the enquiry officer that the concerned workman dishonestly misguided

the management, in connection with the dependent employment application case of Smt. U.Gangamma is concerned,

the said finding was not established during the course of enquiry. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer is

liable to be treated as perverse in nature. It is submitted that consequent upon the supply of enquiry report of enquiry

officer, the concerned workman has submitted his reply categorically pleading all the factual aspects. However, the

disciplinary authority has not considered the application made by the concerned workman before issuing the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

435

impugned office order dated 20/21-7-2011 through which penalty of stoppage of SPRAS with cumulative effect was

imposed. It is submitted that, the impugned order does not give any reason, much less valid in nature. Therefore,

the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. At the cost of reiteration it is to submit that the

workman has not committed any misconduct, as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, imposing of penalty of

stoppage of two SPRAs with cumulative effect is wholly unjustifiable and the same are liable to be restored back duly

granting all other consequential benefits. It is therefore prayed to set-a-side the office order No.RGI/Per/S/46/4215

dated 20/21-7-2011 issued by the Chief General Manager, RG1 Area, SCCL, Godavarikhani.

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

It is submitted that the present petition has been filed by the Dy. General Secretary, Singareni Collieries Labour

Union (TNTUC) to direct the respondent to set aside the Office Order No. GI/Per/S/46/4215, dated 20721.07.2011

issued by the Chief General Manager, RG.1 Area, The SCCL, Godavarikhani in respect of Sri Bandari Shanker, Coal

Filler. It is to submit that the workman Sri Bandari Shanker, E.C.No.0905828, Coal filler, was imposed the

punishment of Stoppage of two SPRAS with cumulative effect on proved charges after conducting detailed domestic

enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to

decide the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. In this regard, it is submitted that to permit the

respondent to produce the evidence in case it is held that the domestic enquiry is not valid. It is submitted that Sri

Bhandari Shanker, was initially appointed as Badli filler on 04.09.1983, and later he was promoted as Coal filler with

effect from 11.05.1988. While he was working at Gdk.No.3 Incline RGI Area he was issued with a charge sheet

vide Lr.No.RG1/GDK.3/R 008/1653, dated 28.07.2005 under Company's Standing Orders No. 25.(1), and 25.(10) for

the misconduct committed by him which reads as follows:

25.(1): Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Employer's business or property.

25.(10): Impersonation.

It is to submit that the workman has given a false written statement, and deposed as one of the witness in the

dependent employment enquiry claiming fraudulently and dishonestly that Sri Koraveni Srinivas was the genuine

Son-in-law of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi, Ex-Coal Filler of Gdk.No.3 Incline who died while in service, and requested

to provide dependent employment to the fake Son-in-law of Sri Koraveni Srinivas, in consideration of the application

submitted by Smt. Uppuleti Gangamma, W/o Late Uppuleti Mondi. Further, the delinquent workman deposed that the

marriage of Kumari Swapna D/o Late Uppuleti Mondi with Koraveni Srinivas S/o Chantaiah was duly performed,

and that he will be held responsible, if Sri Koraveni Srinivas is found to be a fake Son-in-law of the deceased

workman. Based on his written statement and his deposition and one another Co-Workman, Sri Koraveni Srinivas

was provided dependent employment in the Company as Badli filler Vide office order No.P.RG.I/5/7029, dated

22.11.1999 and posted to work at RK-1A Incline, SRP Area, which later found to be a fake case and the claim that Sri

Koraveni Srinivas was a true Son-in-law of Late Uppuleti Mondi was totally false. It is to submit that the concerned

workman has given his explanation dated 10.08.2005 to the charge sheet in English, which was been examined and

found to be not satisfactory. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered to bring out the facts of the matter and to give the

delinquent workman an opportunity to defend his case. The Petitioner attended Enquiry which was commenced on

09.12.2005 and concluded on 06.03.2006, in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The workman

attended and fully participated in the enquiry. At the outset the Enquiry Officer explained the enquiry procedure in

Telugu to the delinquent workman, and he has availed the services of a Co-worker as defense assistant in the enquiry.

The workman has expressed no objection for recording the enquiry proceedings in English, as the enquiry

proceedings were actually held in Telugu language, and once again explained in Telugu by the Enquiry Officer at

every stage of the enquiry before taking the signatures. The Presenting Officer deposed his evidence in the presence

of the delinquent workmen, which was duly recorded by the Enquiry Officer and explained in Telugu to him.

Further, the documentary evidence was produced by the management in the presence of the workman to substantiate

the charges levelled against him in the enquiry. The charge sheeted workman did not cross examine the management

witness when the opportunity was afforded to him. The charge sheeted workman did not produce any substantive

evidence or witness, to prove his innocence to the charges leveled against him in the enquiry. The inquiry Officer

after appreciating and analyzing each evidence adduced in the enquiry held that the charges levelled against the

workman were duly proved against him under Company's Standing Order No. 25(1), and not under 25(10). The

workman was supplied with all the documents including enquiry proceedings and enquiry report vide Show Cause

notice No.RG.I/Per/S/46/3721, dated 13.06.2006 giving him 7 days time to represent, if any, against the findings of

the enquiry report, the charge sheeted workman acknowledged the said notice and submitted his representation dated

21.06.2006 in English, which was been examined and as there were no merits to consider in his representation, the

Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings and after evaluating all the evidence on

record concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, and as the charges framed and proved in the enquiry were

grave and serious in nature warranting punishment with that of dismissal, the management has taken a lenient view to

give an opportunity to the delinquent workman to redeem himself, passed the impugned order

No.RG.I/PER/S/46/4215, 21.07.2011 imposing the penalty of 'Stoppage of Two SPRAs with cumulative effect. In

accordance with Clause 29 of Company's Standing Orders, a workman has a right of Appeal to the Appellate

436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Authority within 45 days on receipt of the order of the punishment. The delinquent workman did not avail the

opportunity of submitting an Appeal to the Appellate Authority. Therefore the allegation that the whole enquiry was

conducted with a preconceived notion, as if the concerned workman is guilty of charges is wholly baseless and devoid

of any truth, is denied. It is to submit that the Company has a dependent employment scheme, to provide

compassionate appointment to the dependents of the Ex-workmen as per the guidelines, to help tide away the hard

times of the family members on the loss of the bread winner. While it is so, Sri Uppuleti Mondi expired while in

service as Coal filler at Gdk.No.3 Incline and Smt Uppuleti Gangamma wife of the deceased workman submitted an

application under dependent employment scheme of the Company, to provide dependent employment to her alleged

Son-in-law Sri Koraveni Srinivas S/o Chantaiah, who alleged to have married her first daughter Kumari Swapna.

While processing the claim of dependent employment the role of the witnesses who are Co-workman of the

deceased, plays a vital role to ascertain the genuineness of the claim. Sri Bandari Shanker, Coal Filler Gdk.No.3.

Incline along with another, Sri Angajala Rayalingu has given a false written statement, and deposed as witnesses

before the Dependent Employment inquiry Committee claiming fraudulently and dishonestly that Sri Koraveni

Srinivas was the genuine Son-in-law of Late Sri Uppuleti Mondi, Ex-Coal Filler of Gdk.No.3 Incline who died while

in service, suppressing the true facts of the case and requested to provide dependent employment to Sri Koraveni

Srinivas in consideration of the application submitted by Smt.Uppuleti Gangamma, W/o I.ate Uppuleti Mondi.

Further, the delinquent workman deposed that the marriage of Kumari Swapna D/o Late Uppuleti Mondi with

Koraveni Srinivas S/o Chantaiah was duly performed, and that he will be held responsible, if Sri Koraveni Srinivas is

found to be a fake Son-in-law of the deceased workman at any time. Based on his written statement and his

deposition and one another Sri Koraveni Srinivas was provided dependent employment in the Company as Badli filler

Vide Office Order No.P.RG.1/5/7029, dated 22.11.1999 and posted to work at RK-1A Incline, SRP Area, which was

later found to be false and a fake Son in-law case. As such, the allegation that the Enquiry Committee after thorough

enquiry has given dependent employment is bereft of any truth or substance. In fact, the delinquent workman has

deliberately misled the Enquiry Committee, in believing that Sri Koraveni Srinivas was a genuine Son-in-law of Late

Sri Uppuleti Mondi, by his fraudulent and dishonest statement and deposition before them, which however was

subsequently proved to be false, thereby the very object of the aforesaid dependent employment scheme was defeated.

At the outset the Enquiry Officer explained the enquiry procedure in Telugu to the delinquent workman. Further, the

workman has expressed no objection for recording the enquiry proceedings in English. However, after the deposition

of the Presenting Officer the entire enquiry proceedings were recorded in Telugu, and once again explained in

Telugu by the Enquiry Officer, at every stage of the enquiry. The Presenting Officer deposed his evidence in the

presence of the delinquent workmen, which was duly recorded by the Enquiry Officer and explained in Telugu to

him. Further, the Presenting Officer while producing the documentary evidence explained the contents of each

document so produced, in the presence of the workman and his defense assistant, to substantiate the charges levelled

against him in the enquiry. It is to submit that the Presenting Officer has submitted the documentary evidence in the

presence of the workman, explaining the nature and the contents of each document in the enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer while examining and extending the opportunity for inspection of the documents to the charge sheeted

workman and his defense assistant, explained the contents of each documents in Telugu for the benefit of the

workman. As the documentary evidence were authentic and relevant to the case, the Enquiry Officer admitted the

documents so produced in the enquiry as management evidence, and provided the copies of the document to the

workman. While it is so, the Petitioner has stated in the petition at Para.No.5 that the concerned workman

categorically deposed that he personally knew the daughter and widow of the deceased employee, late Sri U.Mondi,

whereas in domestic enquiry the workman in his reply to the Question No.20 in cross examination, admitted that the

bride shown in the marriage photo and the computer image of the real Kumari Swapna daughter of the deceased

workman arc not one and the same. Therefore, having know the daughter Kumari Swapna of the deceased workman,

and having fully aware of the fact that the wife of Sri Koraveni Srinivas is not Kumari Swapna, the concerned

workman mislead and misguided the management by giving the false written statement, and deposing dishonestly

before the dependent employment enquiry committee, that the marriage between Kumari Swapna and Sri Koraveni

Srinivas was performed, and that Sri Koraveni Srinivas is a genuine Son-in-law of late Sri Uppuleti Mondi and

requested to provided dependent employment to him. As such, the allegations of the Petitioner that no witness were

examined and his evidence remained unrebutted, and that based on the marriage certificate and photos shown by Smt

U.Gangamma he has signed as witness is not correct, hence denied, The workman cannot absolve himself of his

responsibility as a primary witness in the dependent employment claim of Smt U.Gangamma pretending ignorance,

the concerned workman should have thoroughly enquired and verified the facts, before accepting his responsibility as

witness. It is to submit that all the documentary evidence produced by the Presenting Officer, was examined by the

inquiry Officer in the presence of the charge sheeted workman, and was admitted as management evidence only after

finding the documents authentic and relevant to bring out the facts of the case. The Enquiry Officer while analyzing

and appreciating the evidence did not take into consideration the documents marked as M.Ex.3 and M.Ex.23 as the

deponents of the said statements were not produced in the enquiry. The documents marked as MEx. 1, MEx.6,

MEx.12, MEx.14, MEx. 19, MEx.29 were taken into consideration, as it was submitted by Smt. U.Gangamma

W/o Late U.Mondi in support of her claim for dependent employment to Sri K.Srinivas, which was officially recorded

in the Company records. The documents marked as MEx.2, MEx.7, MEx.8, MEx.9, MEx.10, MIEx.11, MEx. 15, Mx.

16, MEx. 17, MEx.18 and M1Bx.24 were considered by the Enquiry Officer as those are copies of the Official

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

437

documents of the Company. The documents marked as Mx.4, MEx.5 were considered by the Enquiry Officer, as it

was issued by the Competent Authorities of the Government Schools. The documents marked MEx.21, and MEx.22

were considered, as these are written statements of the delinquent workman himself. Lastly, the Enquiry Officer has

taken into consideration the MEx.13 obtained by the Vigilance Department after he has examined and convinced of

its authenticity of the document. The above said documents clearly discloses the nexus between the claimant

Smt.U.Gangamma and the delinquent workman as a witness, by misrepresenting the facts, submitting fabricated

documents with dishonest and malafide intentions, and falsely claiming Sri Koraveni Srinivas as Son-in-law of Late

U.Mondi, for dependent employment in the Company. As such, the allegation of the Petitioner that without

examining the witnesses the enquiry officer ought not to have marked those documents is without any substance or

logic, hence denied. It is to submit that the Enquiry Officer has given his findings justifying his conclusions with

reasons, that the charge under Company's Standing Order No.25.(1) was proved. The document marked as M Ex. 12

is an Affidavit dated 15.06.1997, submitted by Smt. Uppuleti Gangamma wife of the deceased workman for

dependent employment, stating that the age of her daughter Kumari Swapna was wrongly shown less in the Company

records, and that Sri Koravcni Srinivas is her Son -in-law, was not obtained by the Vigilance department as alleged by

the Petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has not based his findings on this document alone, but

based on the facts derived from the sum total of all the relevant and authentic documents produced in the enquiry. It

is to submit that the Presenting Officer has submitted all the documentary evidence in the presence of the workman

and his defense assistant, which was examined and explained in Telugu to the delinquent workman by the Enquiry

Officer. The workman was given an opportunity to inspect and verify the documents, and the copy of the documents

was given to him. The document marked as MEx.4 is a Statement of Scholarship Payments dated 29.01.2002 to

Physically Handicapped Children(PIC) signed by the Head Master, ZPSS, Velgatoor, in which the name of U.Swapna

is shown as 6^th class student with sanctioned amount of Rs.500/- and received by mother Gangamma. The document

MEx.5 is a Transfer Certificate No.69849 with Admission No.445 of Uppulati Swapna issued by the Head Master,

ZPSS Velgatoor, Karimnagar District, in which the date of birth of U. Swapna was incorporated as 18.12.1990 and

that her admission in the school was on 12.06.2003 in 6^th h class. The age of Uppuleti Swapna incorporated in her

School records, tallied with the Company's records of late Uppuleti Mondi in his Family Medical Attendance Book

(MIÈx.9), Coal Mines Pension Form(Mix.11), and CMPF Schedule ‘C' in which the status of Swapna was given as

unmarried (MEx.10), and hospital Book issue Register(MEx.8) as 8 years as on 1996. This clearly established that

the marriage of U.Swapna a handicapped child with polio was not solemnized with Sri Koraveni Srinivas on

09.05.1997. Further, the document marked MEx.15 is a Office Order dated 22.11.1999 appointing Sri Koraveni

Srinivas as Badli filler in the Company, as dependent Son-in-law of late Uppuleti Mondi. The document marked 17,

is Coal Mines Pension Form.PS-3 of Sri Koraveni Srinivas with particulars of his family members, in which the age

of Swapna (wife) was incorporated as 23 years as on 25.03.2000 and the age of Lalitha (Daughter) as 3 years, which

clearly established the fact that Swapna D/o Late U.Mondi is not the real wife of Sri K.Srinivas. The document

marked as MEx. 13 is a print of Computer Image of real Kumari U.Swapna and the document marked MÊx.14is a

marriage photo of Bride and Bridegroom i.e. Sri Koraveni Srinivas and his wife. It is pertinent to mention here that

the delinquent workman himself in reply to the Question No.20, admitted that the bride i.e.,real wife of Sri Koraveni

Srinivas in the marriage photo (MExl4) and Computer Image of' real Uppuleti Swapna i.e. daughter of late U.Mondi,

are not of the same person, thereby established the fact that it is a fake Son-in-law case and the delinquent workman

as a witness has dishonestly given false statement to the Management. The document marked as MEx.19 is a

Certificate of marriage of Sri K.Srinivas and U.Swapna fraudulently obtained by furnishing fabricated information,

and the document marked as MEx.20 is a copy of Form 'B’ marriage register obtained by giving false information to

the Government of AP, and produced the same to the Company, misrepresenting and illegally claiming dependent

employment to Sri K.Srinivas as Son-in-law of late U.Mondi. The delinquent workman was a witness to the

dependent employment claim, accepting fully the responsibility and the consequences flowing from it, in the event of

the claim found to be fake. Therefore, the enquiry Officer after examining all the documentary evidence, briefly

analyzed and explained the documents in his findings at page.8 from Sub-Para (a) to (f) before coming to the

conclusion that the charges arc proved against the workman in the enquiry. As such, all the allegations of the

Petitioner that the documents were obtained behind the back of the concerned workman, and no witness was deposed

has no merits, hence denied. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer after objective analysis of the evidence adduced

in the enquiry, given his findings that the charges levelled against the workman are proved under Company's Standing

Order No.25(1), giving reasons elaborately for coming to such conclusion. The concerned workman has deposed his

evidence in the dependent employment enquiry before the committee, (MEx.21) that he knows the family of late

Uppuleti Mondi since past 6 years, and that the marriage of Swapna D/o late U.Mondi was performed with Sri

Koraveni Srinivas, and that Sri K.Srinivas is the genuine Son-in-law of late U.Mondi. But in his written statement

dated 03.04.2005 given to the Vigilance department (Mix.22) he has stated that he do not know whether the marriage

of U.Swapna was performed or not, and that he did not attend the marriage and he wants to withdraw his statement as

witness to the dependent employment of Sri K.Srinivas the fake Son-in-law of late Uppulcti Mondi. The above

statements clearly established the fact that having known the family members of late Uppuleti Mondi since several

years i.c. Smt. Gangamma as wife of the deceased, and equally aware that Kumari Swapna daughter of the deceased is

a handicapped child with polio, the workman has given false statement in the dependent employment enquiry stating

some other women i.e., real wife of Sri K.Sriniyas as Kumari Swapna, thereby misleading and misguiding the

438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management in providing dependent employment to Sri Koraveni Srinivas as Son-in-law, which later found to be

false. While it is so, the concerned workman in his deposition in the domestic enquiry stated that during the time of

funeral rites of late Uppuleti Mondi, and at the time of 10^th Day Ceremony, Smt Uppuleti Gangamma wife of the

deceased has introduced her daughter Swapna and Son-in-law Srinivas to him. But in his Cross examination in his

reply to Question (No.5) stated that he has seen the wife and children's of late U.Mondi since some time, and to an

another Question (No.6) he replied that he has seen late Mondi children's in many occasions, thereby contradicting his

own statement. The workman as stated Supra, has given conflicting and inconsistent replies in his depositions and

written statements at different times, to mislead and wriggle out of the consequences of his own doing. The above

stated grounds fully established his involvement in the fake dependent employment of Sri K.Srinivas, by suppressing

the true facts and fraudulently misrepresenting the case before the dependent employment committee. As such, the

allegation of the Petitioner that the findings of the enquiry officer, that the concerned workman misguided the

management were not established in the enquiry is bereft of any truth and substance, hence denied. , the Disciplinary

Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings and after evaluating all the evidence on record concurred

with the findings of the enquiry officer, and as the charges framed and proved in the enquiry were grave and serious

in nature warranting punishment with that of dismissal, the management has taken a lenient view to give an

opportunity to the delinquent workman to redeem himself, passed the impugned order No.RG.I/PER/S/46/4215,

21.07.2011 imposing the penalty of 'Stoppage of Two SPRAs with cumulative effect. In view of the above, it is

prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

The domestic enquiry held legal and valid in view of the memo filed by the Petitioner conceding to the

validity of domestic enquiry vide order dated 6.8.2014.

Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondent under Sec.11A of the Act.

Both the parties have also filed written arguments.

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

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner is legal and valid?

II.

Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I

Area, in awarding the punishment of reduction of tow SPRAs with cumulative effect vide order

No.RG.I/Per/S/46/4215 dated 21.7.2011 in respect of Shri Bandari Shankar, Coal Filler, GDK-1 & 2 Inc., is

justified or not?

III.

To what relief the employee in question is entitled for?

Point No.I: The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent held legal and valid vide order dated

6.8.2014 in view of the memo filed by the Petitioner conceding the validity of the domestic enquiry.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Point No.II: Petitioner counsel submitted that, Sri Uppuleti Mondi, who was working as Coal Filler at

GDK-3 Incline expired while in service. As such, his widow Smt Uppuleti Gangamma submitted an application,

requesting to appoint her son-in-law Sri K.Srinivas under dependent employment quota. The application submitted by

Smt Uppuleti Gangamma was countersigned by the Petitioner workman and also one Sri Rayalingu as a witness.

Consequently, an Enquiry Committee constituted by the Company, conducted a thorough enquiry, with regard to the

authenticity of claim of Sri K.Srinivas as son-in-law and after, satisfying with his status, he was given dependent

employment. Further, it is submitted that, Petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 28.7.2005 under Company’s

Standing Orders No.25(1) & 25(10) alleging that one Sri K. Srinivas obtained employment claiming himself as Son-

in- Law of Late Uppuleti Mondi as coal filler and Petitioner workman has signed on application for dependent

employment as one of the witnesses which was submitted by the widow of Late Uppuleti Mondi. Charge sheet was

served upon him and an enquiry was conducted against him, whereas he was not given any opportunity of hearing

much less valid in nature. The whole enquiry was conducted with a pre-conceived notion as if the workman is guilty

of charges. Further, Petitioner submits that the procedure of enquiry was not explained by Enquiry Officer to the

delinquent before commencement of the enquiry. Though the Presenting Officer relied upon several documents to

substantiate the charge, none of those documents were either shown or furnished either before or during the course of

enquiry. Had the procedure of enquiry was explained, the concerned workman and the defence assistant, could have

understood the procedure of enquiry and ought to have participated in the enquiry effectively. As a result of non-

explaining the procedure of enquiry and not showing or furnishing the documents relied on by the Presenting Officer,

the concerned workman was put to great prejudice. In this context it is noticeable that the legality and validity of the

domestic enquiry has already been held by the Court vide order dated 6.8.2014, therefore, aforesaid contention of the

Petitioner in this regard is not acceptable.

Further Petitioner submits that Enquiry Officer has relied upon the documents filed by the Presenting

Officer, by recording the statement of the concerned workman and Enquiry Officer concluded his enquiry. No

witness was examined by the Presenting Officer to substantiate and prove the charge against Petitioner and basing on

such lopsided enquiry the Enquiry Officer has held the charges as proved. On the basis of perverse enquiry, a show

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

439

cause notice was issued and the Petitioner workman was held guilty of the charge and punished. It is submitted that

mere production of the documents by the Respondent and to rely upon those documents without examing the relevant

witness in regular Departmental enquiry is illegal and contrary to law. In the instant case Presenting Officer relied

upon several documents including that of alleged statement given to the Vigilance Department by Uppaleti

Gangamma, but, none of those documents were established and proved during the regular departmental enquiry

through examining the relevant witnesses. However, non-examination of such witness in Departmental Enquiry the

Petitioner was deprived from his valuable right of cross examination and defence which caused prejudice to him.

Therefore, holding the charge merely basing on those unproved documents, is impermissible in law.

10.

Perused the record pertaining to the Departmental Enquiry.During the Departmental Enquiry Management

has examined the only witness Sri A. Sampath Kumar, Dy. Personal Manager, RG.I Area as Management witness

who happens to be Presenting Officer in this enquiry and documents relied upon and proved by the Management

witness are, most of the statements recorded during the vigilance enquiry. Admittedly, the Presenting Officer was

not direct evidence of these documents and statement of the witnesses. Therefore, the evidence produced and referred

by the Management representative in the Departmental Enquiry are not proved as per settled law. However the

Petitioner was deprived to cross examine the witness and to prove his defence which caused him prejudice. In these

circumstances the charge alleged against the Petitioner can not be said to be proved.

11.

In this context the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in LIC of India Vs. Rampal Singh reported in

(2010) 4 SCC 491 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that,

“mere production and marking of documents, would not be sufficient unless those documents are proved through

the relevant witnesses".

In a case Narayan, Dattatreya Ramatheeratha's case reported in 1997 (2) SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that,

"preliminary enquiry losses its significance after the full fledged departmental enquiry".

Further, in Nirmala J. Jha Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that,

“the evidence recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be used in the regular enquiry, as delinquent is not

associated 'with it and the opportunity to cross examine the witness was not given the delinquent employee (paras

14, 41 to 51 of the judgment) ". Further Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “onus to prove the charge with valid

evidence is on the person, who alleges but not on the delinquent employee".

In the case of David Wilson Vs. Government of A.P. reported in (2001) 5 ALT 63, the Division Bench of the

Hon'ble High Court of AP categorically held that,

“Disciplinary Authority can not make use of any material or evidence collected by it during preliminary enquiry,

unless such material or evidence are produced and proved in the regular departmental enquiry.”

Further, in the case of Britania Biscuits Company, reported in 1979 Law Suit 286 and also W.A.No.37/2013,

dt.09-10-2013 in SPDCL Vs. Yesudas Hon’ble Court held:-

“mere production of record is not sufficient enough to prove the charge as, the contents of such documents have

to be proved by examining the person, who issued the same'".

12.

During the enquiry, Management has examined sole witness Sri A. Sampath Kumaar Dy. Personnel

Manager as a Management representative who has given testimony relying upon the statement of the witnesses

examined during the vigilance enquiry i.e., preliminary enquiry. But these witnesses were not examined in

Departmental Enquiry and Petitioner was deprived of his valuable right of cross examination to these witnesses. The

statement of witnesses recorded during the vigilance enquiry can not be read or considered in the Departmental

Enquiry unless examined in the Departmental Enquiry in the presence of the delinquent and providing him

opportunity to cross examine such witness. Further, the documents referred by the witness during the Departmental

Enquiry has not been proved by direct evidence and has not been marked Exhibit as per law. In these circumstances,

the Departmental Enquiry conducted against delinquent is against the provision of Law pertaining to Departmental

Enquiry. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Management has examined only one witness i.e.,

Presenting Officer and no other relevant witness has been examined to prove the document and to corroborate the

testimony of the Presenting Officer. It is settled law that Presenting Officer can not be treated as a witness as he has

no personal knowledge about the events. The statement given by the Presenting Officer and documents filed by him

should be supported by the evidence of primary witnesses and secondary evidence is permissible only, where

primary evidence is cast or not available or it may cause inordinate delay to summon the witness in such situation

exists here in this matter. Therefore, in view of the above, and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as discussed

in preceding paragraph, I found force in the submission of the Petitioner, that Presenting Officer is not competent

witness in Departmental Enquiry to prove the charge against the delinquent and charge alleged against Petitioner is

440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not found to be proved and consequently the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner basing on finding of such

Departmental Enquiry can not be sustained in Law.

In this context the reference of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in GM, SCCL Ltd, Mandamarri

Division Vs. Mohd. Fareed, reported in 2011 (3) ALD 442 is relevant wherein Hon’ble High Court held that,

“In the instant case, the charge against the respondent was that, he filed a fake medical certificate pertaining to

his father. The petitioner (i.e. company) was under obligation to prove that charge by examining the persons, who

came to the conclusion, or confirmed the opinion that the certificate is fake. The case was presented before the

enquiry officer by the Presenting Officer. Not a single witness was examined. For all practical purposes, the

Presenting Officer answers the description of a Counsel, and by no stretch of imagination, he can be treated as

witness, much less, he can vouch for the correctness or otherwise of the documents, produced by him. It is only

the persons who are the custodians of the concerned records, or who are acquainted with the facts of the case, that

can be examined as witnesses and who can throw light upon a truth or otherwise of the allegation or charge. Once

it has emerged that no person was examined in support of the charge, the inescapable conclusion is that, the

charge was not proved at all. The Labour Court noticed this serious flaw, and held that the charge against the

respondent was not proved. This court is not inclined to take any different view.”

Similarly, in the present case also the Presenting Officer has been examined and no other witness has been

examined to prove the charge according to law. Only Presenting Officer has been examined and basing on his

statement and unproved documents the Enquiry Officer held the charge as proved. Such conduct on the part of the

Enquiry Officer has been deprecated by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in numerous cases. Therefore, in view of the

law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court as discussed above, the charge against the Petitioner during the enquiry can

not be said to be proved for the want of direct relevant Evidence.

Further, in the case of– Delhi Cloth & General Mills Vs. Lud Bud Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031 whereat, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that,

“The Enquiry Officer has also committed another mistake when he proceeded on the basis that as the workman

has not adduced any evidence in his defence, it is not open to him to contend that he was not responsible for the

acts of destruction and damages. This observation clearly shows that the Enquiry Officer has missed the

elementary principle of jurisprudence that when allegations of misconduct are levelled against a person, it is the

primary duty of the person making those allegations to establish the same and not for an accused to adduce

negative evidence to the effect that he is not guilty”

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Court, initial burden of proof to prove the charge against the

Petitioner as alleged in the present matter is upon the Management. But the Management failed to discharge their

burden of proof during enquiry, hence Petitioner, the alleged delinquent can not be said to be held guilty on the basis

of finding of such Departmental Enquiry.

13.

The Petitioner submits that during the course of defence evidence he, as a witness categorically deposed

that he personally knows the daughter and widow of the deceased employee i.e. Late U. Mondi and consequent upon

his unfortunate death, he attended the 10^th day ceremony during which time, the widow of the deceased employee

Smt. Gangamma has introduced her son-in-law i.e. the husband of her daughter Smt. Swapna. It is further submitted

that she has shown the photos; marriage certificates of her daughter and son-in-law and thereafter basing on her

request, he has signed the application submitted by the widow of the deceased employee i.e. Smt. Gangamma as

witness. It is submitted that, the evidence of the workman as a defence witness remains unrebutted. But, ignoring

unrebutted evidence, the enquiry officer came to a perverse conclusion holding the charge as proved basing on the

documents obtained during the course of preliminary enquiry.

14.

To arrive at finding, holding the charge as proved Enquiry Officer has relied upon the Ex.M12 i.e.,

affidavit of Smt. Gangamma dated 15.6.1997 allegedly obtained by the vigilance during preliminary enquiry and

that the documents filed by him, but it should have been proved by evidence of Vigilance authorities and Petitioner

should have been given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Neither Smt. Gangamma nor the Vigilance

authorities was examined during the course of enquiry proceeding and Enquiry Officer has placed reliance on

document MEx.12 to hold the charge as proved, and that is, contrary to law.

15.

Perused the findings of Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in his findings, has mentioned that , Sri

Koraveni Srinivas, Badli Filler is not the son-in-law of Late Uppuleti Mondi, Coal Filler, and that it is a fake son-in-

law case. Smt. U. gangamma, W/o Late U. Mondi has misguided the Management with fake documents. Sri

Bandari Shankar, CoalFiller has given a false and fabricated written statement along with Angajala Rajalingu stating

that K. Srinivas was dependent son-in-law of Late Uppuleti Mondi and thereby Sri Bandari Shankar dishonestly

misguided the Management in connection with the dependent employment application case of Smt. U. Gangamma.

So the charge levelled against Sri Bandari Shankar under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.25 No.25.1 dishonesty

in connection with employer’s business is proved beyond doubt.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

441

16.

Further, Disciplinary Authority has given the finding in impugned order of dismissal that the report of

Enquiry Officer in all connected papers have been carefully considered and I agree with the finding of the Enquiry

Officer holding him guilty of the misconduct under the Standing Orders No.25.1.

17.

Now, the question arises whether the act of Petitioner giving the statement in favour of Koraveni Srinivas

as a son-in-law of Late Uppuleti Mondi on the request of Smt. U. Gangamma, widow of Late Uppuleti Mondi was

done with malicious intention or dishonesty.

In this context the reference of the decision of HMT Limited and another vs. Muduppa and others is relevant 2007

SCC page 768 while quoting from earlier judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court reported as State of AP and another

Vs. Govardhanlal 2003 SCC page 739 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held “the ‘legal malice’ or ‘malice in law’,

means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable

probable cause and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. The court held as under:

“12. The legal meaning of malice is ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking

an action. This is sometimes described as malice in fact. ‘Legal Malice’ or ‘malice in law’ means something

done without lawful excuse. In other words it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or

probable cause and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling will and spire. It is deliberate act in disregard of

rights of others.”

Whereas the dishonesty has been defined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision, “when once his actual state of

mind as to knowledge or belief as to fact is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or

dishonest, is to be determined by the fact finder by applying the objective standard of ordinary decent people.

There is no requirement that defendant must appreciate that what has done is by those standard dishonest.”

Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we proceed to scrutinize the finding of the Enquiry

Officer in the present matter. Admittedly, Petitioner has counter signed application on the request of Smt. U.

Gangamma the widow of Ex-Coal Filler, just in order to provide dependent employment to her son-in-law. But

during enquiry, Petitioner as defence witness has furnished a reasonable explanation that, under the circumstances he

gave such statement and put signature on application. He has categorically stated that he has signed as a witness for

the dependent application of Smt. U. Gangamma, W/o Late U. Mondi relied upon so on the marriage photos and

marriage registration certificate and there was no intention on his part as to cause any loss to the Company. Further

he states the he would withdraw his statement if his statement is a certification. Delinquent in evidence deposed too

that he has signed as a witness due to ignorance of the fact. Therefore, in view of the explanation furnished by the

delinquent in his defence evidence pertaining to charge to sign the application as a witness, on the request of

Smt. U. Gangamma, such conduct of the delinquent employee can not be termed as dishonest or malicious, because

the Ex.Coal Filler Late U. Mondi who died during the service was his colleague co-worker and he also attended the

10^th ceremony of his death. Therefore, out of humanity and sympathy, he believed the statement of

Smt. U. Gangamma, the widow of Late U. Mondi as true without any malice or dishonesty as she herself introduced

Sri K. Srinivas, as her son-in-law, to the Petitioner and the Petitioner, in bonafide belief countersigned her

application for dependent employment. Further, the Enquiry Officer did not assign any reason in the report that

why the explanation furnished by the Petitioner as defence witness for his said conduct, was not believed to be

bonafide action. The Enquiry Officer failed to consider the good faith and bonafide of the Petitioner in the present

matter. In view of the fore gone discussion the conduct of the Petitioner can not be termed as dishonesty because

under such circumstances any other colleague workman would not have denied to help the widow of deceased co-

workman to countersign her application for dependent employment. Therefore, finding given by the Enquiry Officer

in his report is not maintainable and also impugned order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary Authority basing upon

such report.

18.

Further, the Enquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence of the witnesses recorded in preliminary

enquiry and basing upon uncorroborated documentary and oral evidence delinquent has been held guilty which is

not sustainable in law. Further, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.7.2011, has not assigned any reason

for accepting the report of Enquiry Officer and in a vague manner it has mentioned that he has considered the

enquiry report of Enquiry Officer and all connected papers and he concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer

holding the Petitioner guilty of misconduct under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.1. Before passing order of

punishment against the delinquent, the Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to assign the reason why he is

accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer and it has to give careful consideration to the evidence accorded in

enquiry and the explanation submitted by the delinquent in response to the show cause notice. But no such

discussion and finding is mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority in his impugned order dated 21/28.7.2011.

Therefore, in such circumstances the order of Disciplinary Authority is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

In this regard, the reference of decision of the M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in G. Vallikumari Vs. A.P.

Educational Society is relevant wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that, "disciplinary authority imposing the

punishment without recording the reasons and simply by referring the findings of the enquiry officer, is liable to

be set aside (paras 19 & 20)".

442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further in another case, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in A. Damodar Vs. SCCL in WP No.26615/1997,

dt.17-04-2007 also categorically held that, “the impugned order does not disclose the reasons, does not discuss

the evidence recorded before the enquiry officer and how the disciplinary authority considered the same, as such,

impugned order is liable to be set aside and hence set aside (last para of the judgment).

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High

Court as discussed above, the impugned proceeding order No. RG.I/Per/S/46/4215 dated 21.7.2011 is not legal and

justified.

Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly.

19.

Point No.III: In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court and finding

given in Point Nos. I & II, the impugned proceeding order No.RG.I/Per/S/46/4215, dated 21.7.2011 issued by the

Respondent Management whereby the punishment of stoppage of two SPRAs of the Petitioner has been inflicted, is

held illegal, arbitrary and is hereby liable to be set aside. The Petitioner is entitled to grant the two SPRAs w.e.f.

21.7.2011, i.e., on which date it was stopped. However, it would not be out of place to mention here that Sri

Koraveni Srinivas against whom the charge was alleged for obtaining the employment by impersonating himself as

Son-in-Law of Late U. Mondi, and he was found guilty of misconduct in the enquiry conducted by the Respondent

Management, Sri Koraveni Srinivas had filed LC No.97/2009 before this Labour Court challenging the impugned

order of dismissal and the Labour Court vide its’ decision dated 27.6.2018 has set aside the order of dismissal against

Sri Koraveni Srinivas and Respondent has been directed to reinstate him into service with continuity of service. The

Petitioner in the present matter was only a witness to countersign the application of Smt. U. Gangamma, Widow of

Late U. Mondi for dependent employment of Sri Koraveni Srinivas. Therefore, in such circumstances, the

punishment inflicted upon the Petitioner is neither sustainable nor maintainable.

This Point No.III is answered accordingly.

AWARD

The action of the Chief General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area,

Godavarikhani in awarding punishment of stoppage of 2 SPRAs with cumulative effect vide order

No.RG.I/Per/S/46/4215, dated 20/21.7.2011 in respect of Shri Bandari Shankar, coal Filler, GDK-I & 2 Inc., is neither

legal nor justified. Hence, order No.RG.I/Per/S/46/4215, dated 21.7.2011 is hereby set aside. Petition is allowed. The

Respondent Management is directed to grant the two SPRAs to the Petitioner with retrospective effect from

21.7.2011 i.e., on which date it was stopped, within one month after receipt of this award.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

20^th day of October, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 180.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj हसंगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंपनी जलजमटेड 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; िैिराबाि, ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

90 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/90/2017.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन.,उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

443

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 180.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/90/2017 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 90/2018

Between:

The General Secretary,

The Singareni Collieries Staff & Workers Union,

Regd. No.E-755 (INTUC),

Hyderabad.

The General Secretary,

The Singareni Collieries Miners & Engineering Workers Union,

Regd. No.E-165 (HMS),

Hyderabad.

The General Secretary,

The Singareni Collieries Employees Union,

Regd. No.E-171 (CITU),

Hyderabad.

The President,

The Singareni Collieries Workers Union,

Regd. No.E-7 (AITUC),

Hyderabad.

The President,

The Singareni Coal Mines Karmik Sangh,

Regd. No.E-121(BMS),

Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner Unions

AND

The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Red Hills, Khairatabad,

Hyderabad.

..… Respondent

444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Party in Person

For the Respondent

: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/90/2017-IR(CM.II) dated 20.7.2018

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

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., in not providing dependent

employment to eligible dependents evenincases of voluntary retirement on health grounds as per

Memorandum of Settlement dated 6.6.1998 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the depenedent of the

workmen represented by the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry Unions viz., S.C. Workers’

Union (AITUC), S.C.M.K. Santh (BMS), S.C. Employees Union (CITU), S.C.M.E. Workers Union (HMS)

and S.C.M.L. Union (INTUC) are entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 90/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for filing of claim statement Petitioners (Unions) remained absent despite sufficient

number of opportunities have been provided to them. The case is posted for filing of claim statement since 2018. It

thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner unions seem to be not interested in pursuing their case. Due to absence

of Petitioners(unions) and non-filing of claim statement case is dismissed for default and a ‘No claim’ award is

passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 18^th day

of October, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents markedfor the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

dk-vk- 181.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj हसंगरेनी कोजलयरीि कंपनी जलजमटेड 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; अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

27 /2008) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/233/2004.vkbZ- vkj- (सीएम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन.,उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 181.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/233/2004– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

445

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7^th day of June, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 27/2008

Between:

The General Secretary,

Singareni Collieries Mine Workers Union,

H.No.D-703, Opp. Rythu Bazar,

Godavarikhani – 50 209.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam – II Division, GDK-8 Inc., Colony(P.O.)

Godavarikhani – 505211.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/233/2004-IR(CM-II)

dated 15.12.2008 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of S/Shri A. Pratap Reddy, A. Rajeshwar Rao, D. Komuraiah & Desari Vodelu for

protection of their pay on their posting as Conveyor Operator is legal and justified? To what relief are the

claimants entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 27/2008 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned and the Petitioner entered appearance. Petitioner filed claim statement and Respondent filed

counter statement.

Case is fixed for Petitioner’s evidence. Both parties called absent. Perusal of the record reveals that

Petitioner in support of his claim petition has filed affidavit of the witness but he did not produce the witness for

cross examination. It is settled law that evidence includes chief examination as well as cross examination as per rule

of Evidence Act. But the Petitioner did not produce evidence to substantiate his claim.

On perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that since the Petitioner has not proved and

substantiated his claim by any oral or documentary evidence, therefore, his claim petition is liable to be dismissed

and ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 7^th day of

June, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ.182.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एयरपोटा अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िी. ए. रुद्रप्पा, िनरल सेक्रेटरी, इंजडयन

एयरपोर्टसा कामगार यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-1/2008) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-11012/3/2007- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 1/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Airport Authority of India and Shri G. A. Rudrappa, General Secretry, Indian Airports Kamgar

Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. L-11012/3/2007-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of December, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2008

Between:

Sri G. A. Rudrappa,

General Secretary,

Indian Airports Kamgar Union,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India,

Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung, New Delhi-110 003.

The Director,

Airport Authority of India,

Begumpet, Hyderabad.

… Respondents

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

447

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

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

For the Respondent

: M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, M. Govind & Venkatesh Dixit, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-11012/3/2007-IR(M) dated 26.12.2009

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

the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Airport Authority of India, New Delhi in not revising the rates of

Over Time Allowance to its workmen retrospectively w.e.f. 1/1/1989 as agreed upon in tripartite settlement

dated 19/2/1997 with workmen Union (Indian Airports Kamgar Union) is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 1/2008 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance. Petitioner filed claim statement and Respondent filed counter statement.

Case is fixed for Petitioner’s evidence. But since last many dates of hearing Petitioner is absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity granted to him Petitioner did not adduce his evidence in support of his claim. It appears that he

do not want to prosecute his case any further. His claim statement has not been substantiated by any cogent

evidence. Petitioner is not putting his presence since 2020. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems

to be not interested in pursuing his case. As such, a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 29^th day of

December, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ.183.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िी. मल्लेि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-20/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024- आईआर(एम)-10]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relation to LIC of India and Shri G. Mallesh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-10]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 9^th day of January, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2021

Between:

Sri G. Mallesh,

S/o D. Suryanarayana,

D.No.27-200-36, Sundaraiah Nagar,

Dhrmavaram(M), Ananthapur,

District-515672.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India, Post Box No.10, College Road,

Kadapa – 516004. (A.P.)

The Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Dharmavaram Branch,

Ananthapuram District. (A.P.)

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, O/o Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner(C), Hyderabad by its

order No.7(8)/2021-B1 dated 10.3.2021 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for

adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of LIC of India in terminating the services of Sri G. Mallesh, Ex-

worker is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 20/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

On the date fixed for filing of claim statement, Petitioner remained absent despite service of notice and

extending sufficient number of opportunities Petitioner did not turn up and did not file any claim statement. It thus

becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing his case. Due to absence of Petitioner

and non-filing of claim statement case is dismissed for default and a ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected and signed by me on this the

9^th day of January, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

449

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ.184.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेससा

िीन गैस जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कमलेि चंद्र एंड 5 अन्य के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-34/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/18/2022- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Green Gas Limited and Shri Kamlesh Chandra & 5 others which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. L-30011/18/2022-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 34/2022

Ref. No. L-30011/18/2022-IR(M) dated: 21.07.2022

BETWEEN

Shri Kamlesh Chandra & 5 others, House No. E-1/845, Ruchi Khand, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow-226002.

AND

The Managing Director, M/s Green Gas Ltd., 2nd floor, Fortuna Tower, 10 RanaPratapmarg, Lucknow-226001

AWARD

By order No. L-30011/18/2022-IR(M) dated: 21.07.2022 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal for adjudication, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with

following schedule:

450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Green Gas Ltd. Lucknow in terminating the services of

Shri Kamlesh Chandra & 5-others working as a Guard without following the provision of section 25 F of

I.D. Act 1947 is justified in the eye of law? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"`

In response to reference on 16.11.2022, Sri Kamlesh Chandra has filed statement of claim in his behalf as well as on

behalf of Sri Vinay Kumar, the two employees on whose behalf reference has been made; along with three other

employees, inter alia stating therein that they are working as Security Gurard w.e.f. 01.04.2019 in Green Gas Limited;

however, their services were orally terminated w.e.f. 01.08.2021.

Accordingly, the following prayer has been made:

“1. To pass an order setting aside the illegal termination order dated 01/08/2022 and also direct the Opposite Party

to reinstate the applicants on their services with full back wages.

2. To pass any other order as deemed necessary under the above mentioned facts and circumstances.”

On 11.08.2023, on behalf of the claimants, Sri Kamlesh Chandra and Sri Vinay Kumar, an affidavit was filed, which

is swered by Sri Kamlesh Chandra, taken on record. The contents of the same are reproduced herein below:

“1. That the deponent is the applicant no.-1 himself in the above noted case and doing pairving of the case on behalf

of applicant no.-2 and as such he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances deposed hereunder.

2. That in the above noted case, in reference of order F.No.-L- 30011/18//2022-IR(M), Government of India, Bharat

Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya Dated 21/07/2022, in erified respect of Kamlesh Chandra & 5 others

and the applicant had 8/2013 Tiled the claim statement on behalf of two claimants viz. Kamlesh Chandra & Vinay

Kumar on dated 16.11.2022.

3. That, after adjudication, opposite party had filed their preliminary objection on dated 13.12.2022 and written

statement on 20.04.2023.

4. That now the applicants do not want to contest the present industrial dispute any more.

5. That, in view of the above facts, reasons and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal

may kindly be pleased to allow the withdrawal application and permit the applicants to withdraw the present

industrial dispute No. 34 of 2022 in the interest of justice and pass appropriate order.”

Further both the claimants, Sri Kamlesh Chandra and Sri Vinay Kumar were present before the Tribunal on

11.08.2023 and their signature was also taken on the said application as well as the photocopy of Aadhar was also

taken on which signature of said persons exists which is kept on record.

Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent has no objection.

Accordingly, in view of the prayer made by the workmen viz. Sri Kamlesh Chandra and Sri Vinay Kumar, in affidavit

dated 11.08.2023, quoted hereinabove, the claim of workmen is dismissed as withdrawn; and workmen are not

entitled for any relief.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Award as above.

Lucknow.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

December, 2023

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 185.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार फैक्री

मैनेिर, मेससा जभलाई िेपी सीमेंट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजचव, जिला सतना सीमेंट स्ट्टील

फाउंड्री खिान कामगार यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

िबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-35/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/18/2021- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

451

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to The Factory Manager, M/s Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., and The General Secretary, Zila Satna Cement Steel

Foundry Khadan Kaamgar Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. L-29011/18/2021-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/2021

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary,

Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kamgar

Union (AITUC), AITUC Office Santnagar, Ghoordang

Ward No. 11, PO-Birla Vikas, Satna(MP)

Workman

Versus

The Factory Manager,

M/s Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd.,

PO- Babupur, Satna (MP)-485112.

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 27^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 23/08/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

L-29011/18/2021 (IR(M)) dt.23/08/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the demand raised by the Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kamgar Union

(AITUC), Satna for classification of the post & difference of wages & other benefits by regularizing to

the contract labours (List of labours Annexure-A), is legal, justified and valid? If not, as to what relief

the contract labours are entitled to?"

After registering the case on reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. In

Spite of service of notices, the workman never appeared nor did he file any statement of claim, management also did

not file any written statement of defense.

Since None of the parties filed any pleading nor did file any evidence, holding the claim of workman not proved the

reference deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 186.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ

िनरल मैनेिर (यूजनट िेड), मेससा कारवािी ओपन कास्ट्ट कोल् माइंस के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री दिलेस्ट्वर

कुमार पटेल एंड 101 अन्य के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-153/2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-27011/3/2017- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 153/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to The Chief General Manager (Unit Head), M/s Karwahi Open Cast Coal Mines and Shri Dileswar Kumar

Patel and 101 others which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

31.01.2024.

[No. L-27011/3/2017-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Dileswar Kumar Patel & 101 others,

At-Karwahi, Po-Saraitola, PS-Tamnar,

Distt.- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) -496107.

Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager (Unit Head),

M/s Karwahi Open Cast Coal Mines,

Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited,

At-Karwahi, Po-Saraitola, Via-Tamnar,

Distt.- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) -496107

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 26^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 05/12/2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-27011/3/2017-

IR(M) dt.05/12/2017 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action for denying to pay bonus by the management of Karwahi open cast coal Mines,

IV/7 Millupara in Raigarh district of Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd for the Period July, 2015 to March

2016 and April, 2016 to March, 2017 in respect of 102 workers Namely Shri Dileshwar Kumar Patel

and 101 others is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workers in the dispute are entitled to?".

After registering the case on reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. In

Spite of service of notices, the workman never appeared nor did he file any statement of claim, management also did

not file any written statement of defense.

Since None of the parties filed any pleading nor did file any evidence, holding the claim of workman not proved the

reference deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 187.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

डायरेक्टर प्लांट, मेससा एसीसी जलजमटेड, कैमोर सीमेंट वक्सा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री मुकेि गौतम, िनरल

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

453

सेक्रेटरी, कैमोर सीमेंट एंड खिान कमाचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, िबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-51/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/3/2019- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 51/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to The Director, M/s ACC Limited, Kymore Cement Works and Shri Mukesh Gautam, General Secretary,

Kymore Cement & Khadan Karmachari Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. L-29011/3/2019-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Mukesh Gautam, General Secretary,

Kymore Cement & Khadan Karmachari Sangh,

Address: Artizm Colony, O.Α. - 27,

ACC Colony, Kymore, District - Katni (MP)

Workman

Versus

The Director Plant,

M/s ACC Limited,

Kymore Cement Works, Post - Kymore,

District - Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 27^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 17/06/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-29011/3/2019-

IR(M) dt. 17/06/2019. The dispute under reference related to :-

"क्या प्रबंिन, ए.सी.सी. जलजमटेड, कैमोर सीमेंट वक्सा, पोस्ट्ट कैमोर, जिला कटनी, मध्य प्रिेि के द्वारा श्रम संघ के सिस्ट्य श्री अनुराग

जद्धवेिी को दिनांक 19.12.2018 को प्लांट के भीतर काया पर िाने िेतु पंहचंग करने से मना कर काया पर िाने से रोकने की कायावािी

न्यायोजचत िै? यदि निीं तो, संबंजित आवेिक दकस अनुतोष का िकिार िै?"

After registering the case on reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. In

Spite of service of notices, the workman never appeared nor did he file any statement of claim, management also did

not file any written statement of defense.

454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Since None of the parties filed any pleading nor did file any evidence, holding the claim of workman not proved the

reference deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 188.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

सीजनयर जडजविनल मैनेिर, मेससा लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री रािेंिर

जगरी गोस्ट्वामी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-50/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/19/2019- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 188.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 50/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to The Sr. Divisional Manager, M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Rajender Giri Goswami

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. L-17012/19/2019-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Rajender Giri Goswami,

337/2, Ward No. 16, Parasiya,

District-Chhindwara (MP).

Workman

Versus

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Madan Mahal, Nagpur Road,

Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 15^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 20/05/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

No. L-17012/19/2019-IR(M) dt.20/05/2019 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the enquiry proceedings in reference to charge sheet dated 02.01.2015 against the workman

Sh. Rajendra Giri Goswami by the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Division

Office, Jabalpur (MP) were vitiated?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

455

If yes, whether the order of punishment is liable to be set aside/modified? What other reliefs, the workman is

entitled to? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?"

After registering a case on reference, notices were sent to the parties.

During the proceeding notices were served to the parties as is clear from services status downloaded from the internet

available in file. Management filed an appearance through Ld. Counsel.

It was informed by management during the proceeding that the workman had died; his legal representative did not

come forward for being substituted. Hence, in these circumstances the reference has become infructuous and is

answered accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 189.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री चंद्र भुसन चौिरी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक

अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, पटना, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-31 (सी) 2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया

िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2023- आईआर(एम)-74]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 189.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31 (C) of 2022) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

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

and Shri Chandra Bhusan Chudhary which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-74]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICERINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:- 31 (C) of 2022

Between the management of The management of Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Uma Shankar Marg, Club

Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-844101 and their workman Sri Chandra Bhusan Chaudhary, S/O- Shri Ram Nath Chaudhary, C/0-

Sri Mukul Chaudhary, Behind the Nisad Gas Godown, Hathsarganj, Hajipur, Vaisali-844101. .

For the management:-

Mr. Raj Dular Sah, Advocate.

For the workman:-

None.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated- 1^st December, 2023

By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID/(06)/2022/Dy.CLC Patna, dated- 24.08.202022 the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour & Employment, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section-(2A)

of section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the following dispute

between the management of The management of Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Uma Shankar Marg, Club Road,

Muzaffarpur, Bihar-844101 and their workman Sri Chandra Bhusan Chaudhary, S/O- Shri Ram Nath Chaudhary,

C/0- Sri Mukul Chaudhary, Behind the Nisad Gas Godown, Hathsarganj, Hajipur, Vaisali-844101 for adjudication to this

tribunal:-

456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur to terminate the

service of Chandra Bhusan, was correct and valid? If not, to what reliefs the workman is entitled for?”

2. Upon receiving the reference case on 23.11.2022 registered notice was issued to both the sides vide memo

no.- 302 dt- 14.12.2022 fixing on 24.01.2023 but workman side did not appear on the fixed date but the management

side appeared through his learned counsel.

From perusal of the case record, it appears that this reference case for grievances of workman Sri Chandra

Bhusan against the management of LIC of India is received to this tribunal on 23.11.2022. Accordingly notice has

been issued to both the sides on 14.12.2022 but workman did not turn up as his registered notice was returned to this

tribunal due to the in complete address but the management side appeared on 24.01.2023 itself. This tribunal further

finds that the complete address was asked from the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Patna. The complete

address of the workman was received to this tribunal on 21.04.2023. Thereafter, registered notice was issued again to

the workman on complete address given by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Patna but workman never

turn-up. However, management side used to appear on each an every day. This tribunal further finds that continuous

absence of the workman not to contest his case is itself an indication he is not interested at all to proceed his case

before this tribunal perhaps he has no grievance at all. The learned counsel for the management submitted that since

workman himself is not interested as he is evading his appearance from the very beginning so appropriate order may

kindly be passed.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions as advanced on behalf of the

management side, this tribunal finds that this reference is received to this tribunal on 23.11.2022 but workman never

turned- up inspite of having ample opportunities. Continuous absence of the workman itself denotes he has no

grievance at all against the management. Accordingly in the facts & circumstances of the case as discussed above this

is the considered opinion of this tribunal that tribunal has no option than to pass “ No Dispute Award”. Thus this

tribunal pass “ No Dispute Award” accordingly. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 31 िनवरी, 2024

का.आ. 190.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससा बीपीसीएल; मेससा िनता रांसपोटा सर्वास; मेससा राि रोडवेि; मेससा रॉयल िावडा माकेरटंग सलूिन; मेससा जबभा

भारत गैस िामीण जवतरक और मेससा चंद्र इंटरप्राइिेि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और जडप्टी िनरल सेक्रेटरी, भारत

पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड एम्प्लाइि यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

पटना, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-19 (सी) 2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 31.01.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/30/2019- आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2024

S.O. 190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19 (C) of 2019) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s BPCL;

M/s Janta Transport Service; M/s Raj Roadways; M/s Royal Havard Marketing Solution; M/s Bibha Bharat

Gas Gramin Vitrak and M/s Chandra Enterprises and The Dy. General Secretary, Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Limited Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 31.01.2024.

[No. L-30011/30/2019-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

457

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICERINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:- 19 (C) of 2019

Between the management of (1) Regional Manager (LPG) East, M/S BPCL, Eastern Regional Office, Bharat

Bhavan, Plot No.-31, C.I.T. Scheme, Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata, Pin Code-700095 (2)

Territory Manager (LPG) M/S- BPCL, Fathua, Patna—803201 (3) Shri Sarjinder Singh, Proprietor, M/S Janta Transport

Service, Near Lucky Biscuit Factory, Jai Krishna Road, Hajiganj, Patna City, District-Patna-800008 (4) Shri Rajesh

Kumar, Proprietor, M/S Raj Roadways, Sahu Colony, Station Road, District- Nawada, Bihar, Pin Code-8005110 (5)

Shri Shayam Kumar, Proprietor, M/S Royal Havard Marketing Solution, At + Post- Paprur, Opp. Super Highway Petrol

Pump, District- Begusarai, Bihar-851210 (6) Shri Bipin Kumar, Proprietor, M/S Bibha Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak, At-

Pandarakh Tola Pundapur, Post- Pandarakh, District- Patna, Bihar Pin Code-851210 (7) Dr. Prakash Chandra,

Proprietor, M/S Chandra Enterprises, C/O- BPCL, Fathua, Patna-803201 (8) Dy. General Secretary, Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. Employees Union, C/O- BPCL, Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhavan, Plot No.- 31, C.I.T Scheme,

Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata, Pin Code-700095.

For the management:-

Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. (1) & (2)

For the rest of management

:-None.

For the workman:-

Sri Manoj Kumar Singh Secretary / Dy. Secretary,Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Employees Union.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dt- 6^th November, 2023.

By the adjudication order No.-L-30011/30/2019-IR(M) New Delhi, dated- 25.11.2019 the Govt. of India

Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the

management of (1) Regional Manager (LPG) East, M/S BPCL, Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhavan, Plot No.-31,

C.I.T. Scheme, Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata, Pin Code-700095 (2) Territory Manager (LPG)

M/S- BPCL, Fathua, Patna—803201 (3) Shri Sarjinder Singh, Proprietor, M/S Janta Transport Service, Near Lucky

Biscuit Factory, Jai Krishna Road, Hajiganj, Patna City, District-Patna-800008 (4) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor, M/S

Raj Roadways, Sahu Colony, Station Road, District- Nawada, Bihar, Pin Code-8005110 (5) Shri Shayam Kumar,

Proprietor, M/S Royal Havard Marketing Solution, At + Post- Paprur, Opp. Super Highway Petrol Pump, District-

Begusarai, Bihar-851210 (6) Shri Bipin Kumar, Proprietor, M/S Bibha Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak, At- Pandarakh Tola

Pundapur, Post- Pandarakh, District- Patna, Bihar Pin Code-851210 (7) Dr. Prakash Chandra, Proprietor, M/S Chandra

Enterprises, C/O- BPCL, Fathua, Patna-803201 (8) Dy. General Secretary, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Employees Union, C/O- BPCL, Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhavan, Plot No.- 31, C.I.T Scheme, Prince Gulam

Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata, Pin Code-700095 for adjudication to this tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the workers engaged by the Contractors for loading Unloading at LPG Botling Plant, BPCL, Fathua,

Patna for Distributors-cum-Transportor in BPCL, Fathua is “ Workman” ofBPCL,Fathua under ID Act, 1947?”

If yes, whether the demand of the Bharat petroleum Corporation Ltd Employees Union, Bihar for these workers

engaged by the Contractors for Distributors-cum-Transporter in BPCL, Fathua for hike in the wages of the

loading unloading workers for Rs. 500/- per 10 wheels truck and Rs. 300/- per 6 wheels truck from the existing

rate of Rs. 250/- per 10 wheels truck and Rs 180/- per6 wheels truck respectively, is proper, just and legal

under ID Act,1947? If yes, to what relief these workers concerned are entitled to? What other directions, if any,

are necessary in the matter?”

After receiving the notification of the above reference case on 09.12.2019, notices to all the parties were

issued from this tribunal but only management no.- 1 & 2 BPCL appeared before this tribunal. The management M/S

Janta Transport Service, M/S Raj Roadways and M/S Bibha Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak did not turn-up even after

receiving the registered notice issued by this tribunal, accordingly proceeding against all the these three parties of

management side have been initiated ex-parte. Other two management parties M/S Royal Havard Marketing Solution

and M/S Chandra Enterprises were also intimated through registered post but due to the in correct address, their

notice was returned back. Accordingly, the principal management BPCL was directed to furnish the correct address of

these two management but it was not made available by the principal management side the BPCL. This tribunal

further finds that statement of claim has been filed by the workman / union sides on 26.07.2022 later on the principal

458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management BPCL filed written statement on 16.01.2023 thereafter both the workman side and the principal

management BPCL were directed to furnish list of witnesses and documents but in the mean time management side

and the workman / union side apprised to this tribunal, negotiation is on between the two sides to resolve the dispute.

This tribunal further finds that General Secretary, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Employee’s Union has sent a

letter to this tribunal mentioning therein “ we have signed an agreement on wages and other matter with M/S Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 28.03.2023. As per clause-3(b) of the said agreement, we are to withdraw our cases

being pending before any court of law / conciliation. Hence we withdraw our subject dispute as per the agreement dt-

28.03.2023.

On the basis of the said letter, this tribunal directed to the management and workman sides as well to file

agreement details relating to the dispute assigned to this tribunal by way of instant reference case. This tribunal

further finds that a petition have been filed on behalf of the BPCL Employees Union, Fathua mentioning therein the

matter related in the instant case has been amicably settled out sides the court and an agreement has been prepared

between Transport of BPCL, Fathua LPG Unit and the Contractors M/S Subhadrah Enterprises in connection with

rate of loading and unloading and other matters the agreement was duly signed and it is also prayed that now there is

no dispute left so “No Dispute Award” may be passed. This tribunal further finds that the management side also

conceded the prayer made by the workman side.

Considering all the facts and circumstance of the case and material available on the record as discussed

above, this tribunal find that this reference is to adjudicate about the demand of BPCL Employees Union, Bihar for

their workers engaged by the contractors for Distributors-cum-Transporter in BPCL, Fathua, for hike in the wages of

the loading and unloading is proper and legal. This tribunal further finds that during the course of the proceeding the

referred dispute has been resolved between the two sides and accordingly agreement paper has been prepared and on

the basis of the said agreement the workman / union side apprised this tribunal that their dispute is resolved by a

written agreement and further the General Secretary of the BPCL Employee Union also sent a letter regarding

withdrawal of the case by virtue of said agreement. Accordingly this tribunal finds and hold that now no dispute exist

between the aggrieved workman / union sides and the management of BPCL. Accordingly this tribunal has no option

than to pass “ No Dispute Award”. Thus this tribunal pass “No Dispute Award” accordingly. This award is effected

after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 191.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क् वाटार, सैन्य क्षेत्र, परटयाला; श्री पवन कुमार बिाि ठेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj हमंकू कुमार, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (108/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-52]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024

S.O. 191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 108/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The

Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor

R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Minku Kumar.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-52]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

459

ID No.108/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Minku Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o H.No.10, Sanjay Colony, Patiala, C/o Harpreet Singh

Resident-cum-Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Sh. Minku Kumar has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 192.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क्वाटार, सैन्य क्षेत्र, परटयाला; श्री पवन कुमार बिाि ठेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj परमिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (107/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-51]

सलोनी , उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024

S.O. 192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 107/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The

Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor

R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Paramjit Kaur.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-51]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID No.107/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Paramjit Kaur W/o Sh. Lakhvir Singh R/o Village Passiana Tehsil & Distt. Patiala, C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-

Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Smt. Paramjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 193.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj जवक् की, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (106/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-50]

सलोनी , उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024

S.O. 193.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 106/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The

Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor

R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Vicky.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-50]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.106/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Vicky S/o Sh. Surjit Singh R/o H.No.54, Sanjay Colony, Patiala C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-Office of Street

No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

461

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Sh. Vicky has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 194.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj मनिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (109/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-53]

सलोनी , उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024

S.O. 194.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 109/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.

Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor

R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Manjit Kaur.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-53]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.109/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Manjit Kaur W/o Malkit Singh R/o H.No.501, Div. No.14 Dhiru Di Basti Patiala, C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-

Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Smt. Manjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 195.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सुनीता रानी, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (110/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-54]

सलोनी , उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024

S.O. 195.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 110/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The

Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor

R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Sunita Rani.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-54]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.110/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Sunita Rani W/o Jasvir Singh R/o Village Passiana Tehsil & Distt. Patiala C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-Office

of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

463

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Smt. Sunita Rani has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 196.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन िेड क्वाटार, सैन्य क्षेत्र, परटयाला; श्री पवन कुमार बिाि ठेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175,

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj जसमरनिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (111/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-55]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2024

S.O. 196.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 111/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.

Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.

175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Simranjit Kaur.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-55]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.111/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Simranjit Kaur W/o Sukhchain Singh Village Jahlan Ranbirpura Distt. Patiala C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-

Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Smt. Simranjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 197.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj बलहिंिर हसंि, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (112/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-56]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 197.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 112/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.

Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.

175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Baljinder Singh.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-56]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.112/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Baljinder Singh S/o Sh. Jarnail Singh R/o H.No.263, VPO Lang Distt. Patiala C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-

Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Sh. Baljinder Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 198.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

465

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सोिनिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (113/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-57]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 198.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 113/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.

Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.

175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Sohanjit Kaur.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-57]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 113/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Sohanjit Kaur W/o Sh. Satnam Singh R/o Village Passiana Tehsil & Distt. Patiala, C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-

Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Smt. Sohanjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 199.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj श्रीमती ममता, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (114/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-58]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 199.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 114/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court–I

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.

Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.

175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Smt. Mamta.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-58]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 114/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Smt. Mamta W/o Sam Sain Chinda R/o H.No.63-B, Kallar Colony, Patiala C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-cum-Office

of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Smt. Mamta has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

dk-vk- 200.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

अबान एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, परटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सुभाष कुमार, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (115/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-59]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

467

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 200.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 115/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn.

Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G.

175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Subhash Kumar.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-59]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 115/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Subhash Kumar S/o Sh. Randhir Kumar R/o H.No.51, St. No.5, Sanour Road, Patiala C/o Harpreet Singh Resident-

cum-Office of Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala.

2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-19.12.2023

The workman Sh. Subhash Kumar has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no

use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

का. आ. 201.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

निदेशक आई.आई.टी. मंडी, कम ंद, निल मंडी, (निम चल प्रदेश), एमडी/सीईओ न्यूनिज़ि कमर्शियल एंड एस्कॉटि

सर्ििसेि, मेिली, नशमल , निम चल प्रदेश, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कृष्ण देिी, क मग र, के बीच अनुबंि

में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंडीगढ़ पंचाट(संिभा संख्या

01/2019) को िैस कक अिुलग्नक में कदख य गय िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स थ

01/02/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ थ l

[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-23-आईआर-(डीयू)]

कदलीप कुम र, अवर सजचव

468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S. O. 201.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

The Director I.I.T. Mandi,Kamand, Distt. Mandi, (H.P.), The MD/CEO Nuvision Commercial & Escort

Services, Mehli, Shimla, H.P, and Shri Krishna Devi, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 01/02/2024.

[No. L- 42025-07-2024-23- IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.01/2019

Registered On:-02.04.2019

Krishna Devi W/o Sh. Ram Dass, R/o Village and P.O. Marathu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Director I.I.T. Mandi at Kamand, V.P.O. Kamand, Distt. Mandi, H.P.

2. The MD/CEO Nuvision Commercial & Escort Services, H.O. Ashirwad Sadan, Mehli, Shimla, H.P.

........Respondents

Award

Passed On:-11.01.2024

1. The workman Smt. Krishna Devi has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the IndustrialDisputes

Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing written statement by

respondent No.2 but none is responding on its behalf as well as workman is also not responding from several dates.

Several opportunities have already been given to the respondent No.2 for filing written statement, as workman is also

not responding from several dates which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on

merits.

3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause

against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly,

no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section

17 of the ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

का. आ. 202.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

गैरीसि इंिीनियर (ि यु सेि ) एमईएस, ि यु सेि स्टेशि, िलि र , लुनिय ि ; मैससि चौिरी इंटरप्र इिेि, निि सी िई

आब दी अक ल घर, 45, पीर ब ब त रुशॉ रोड, पंि ब, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मि सनचि, एमईएस

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

469

कॉन्रैक्ट िकिसि यूनियि (एडी), िलि र सी/ओ सीटू क य िलय, र यकोट, लुनिय ि , के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक

जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंडीगढ़ पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 130/2018) को

िैस कक अिुलग्नक में कदख य गय िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स थ 01/02/2024 को

प्राप्त हुआ थ l

[सं. 14011/11/2018 -आईआर-(डीयू)]

कदलीप कुम र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 202.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 130/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

The Garrison Engineer (Air Force) MES, Air Force Station, Halwara, Ludhiana ; M/s Choudhary Enterprises,

R/o New Abadi Akal Gharh, 45, Peer Baba Tarushaw Road, Punjab, and The General Secretary, MES

Contract Workers Union (AD), Halwara C/o CITU Office, Raikot, Ludhiana, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 01/02/2024.

[No. L- 14011/11/2018 - IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.130/2018

Registered On: 21.01.2019

General Secretary, MES Contract Workers Union (AD), Halwara C/o CITU Office, H.No.180, Partap Nagar, New

Abadi, Akalgarh, The-Raikot, Ludhiana-141109.

...........Workman

Versus

Garrison Engineer (Air Force) MES, Air Force Station, Halwara, Ludhiana-141109.

M/s Choudhary Enterprises, R/o New Abadi Akal Gharh, 45, Peer Baba Tarushaw Road, Punjab-141106.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 11.01.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-14011/11/2018 (IR(DU)) dated 20.11.2018, under clause (d) of

Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the demand MES Contract Workers Union, AD Halwara, for reinstatement of terminated

contract workman namely 1. Sh. Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Naib Singh 2. Sh. Santokh Singh S/o Sh. Amreek

Singh and 3. Sh. Sukhdeev Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh against Garrison Engineer (Air Force), MES, Air

Force Station, Halwara and M/s Chaudhary Enterprises, Halwara is legal, fair and justified? If yes, than what

relief union/ workmen are entitled to and from which date?”

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by workman

but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the management that workman is

not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

2. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true. Several

opportunities have already been given to the workman to file replication but of no use. Which denotes that the

workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to

pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of

workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

3. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act,1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 2 Qjojh] 2024

का. आ. 203.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मि प्रबंिक (प्रभ री), सीएस एिं एफपी, बीएचईएल, िगदीशपुर, अमेठी, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री र मर ि गुप्त , क मग र, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-

श्रम न्यायालय- लखिऊ पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 32/2018) को िैस कक अिुलग्नक में कदख य गय िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के स थ 01/02/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ थ l

[सं. एल – 42025-07-2024-24-आईआर-(डीयू)]

कदलीप कुम र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S. O. 203.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2018) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – Lucknow, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the employers in relation The General Manager (In-charge), CS & FP, BHEL,

Jagdishpur, Amethi, and Shri Ramraj Gupta, Worker, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 01/02/2024.

[No. 42025-07-2024-24- IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 32/2018

RAM RAJ V/s BHEL

BETWEEN

Ramraj Gupta S/o Janki Prasad Gupta

R/o Village & post- Gairav District-Barabanki (U.P.)

Workman

AND

General Manager (In-charge),

CS & FP

BHEL

Jagdishpur, Distt.-Amethi

…….. Opp. Party

AWARD

Facts in brief as taken by Ramraj Gupta & 18 others in their claim statement filed on 14.12.2018 that they were

working and discharging duties in the CS & FP BHEL Jagdishpur from last 10 years however without following the

provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) their services were

retrenched/terminated with effect from 28.02.2018.

In view of the said factual background they prayed for the following relief in the present case.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

471

vr% Jheku ths ls fouze izkFkZuk gS fd ekuoh; n`f"Vdks.k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s ge lHkh Jfedks dks iqu% jkstxkj

fnykus o ukSdjh fudkys tkus dh frfFk 28-02-2018 ls vkt rd e; osru lfgr ukSdjh ls cgky djk;k tk;sa

rkfd ge lHkh vius ifjokj dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k dj lds rFkk lq[ke; thou O;rhr dj ldsA egku n;k gksxhA

On behalf of the respondent i.e. CS & FP BHEL written statement was filed in which the defence was taken that the

claimants are contractual employees through M/s Ideal Security Service Private Limited when, their term of contract

was completed on 28.02.2018 they were retrenched so not entitled for any relief.

On 27.06.2019 workman filed written statement.

Thereafter on behalf of the respondent by means of application dated 17.05.2023 the documents filed, details of which

are given herein below:-

List of documents for and on behalf of respondent company.

Sl. No.

Particulars

Page No.

The copy of registration of principal employer under Contract

Labour (Regulation And Abolition) Act, 1970

1-3

The copy of tender notice/publication

4-33

The copy of work order

34-37

The copy of agreement executed between principal employer

and contractor

38-48

The copy of ESIC and EPF code of Principal employer and

contractor both.

49-50

From the perusal of order-sheet the position which emerged out that 25.03.2019 time was granted to workman to file

rejoinder thereafter the time was granted for the said purpose on 23.04.2019, 04.06.2019, 27.06.2019 and 28.09.2019.

Lastly on 31.10.2023 order was passed the same quoted herein below:-

31.10.2023

Matter taken up in revised list.

Parties absent.

In spite of last opportunity rejoinder is not filed, accordingly opportunity for rejoinder is closed.

List on 16.01.2024 for ex-parte hearing.

Today when the matter was taken up in the revised cause list neither the workmen nor their legal representative

present.

Sri. A.K. Singh learned counsel for respondent is present.

Accordingly after hearing the learned counsel for respondent, going through the record and in view of the above said

facts and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v.

Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

"It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the

order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman

raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement

before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to

prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by

the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief."

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

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

as under:

"The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech

India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman

the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the

employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on

the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led."

And by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary- cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held

as under:

472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal

of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent.

In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed."

As the workmen/claimants have not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is

liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 204.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 23 /2013) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन.,उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 204.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 23/2013) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[ No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN, N., Dy. Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/23/2013

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shyam Das Kurre deceased during pendency

Represented by his legal representatives.

S/o Shri Tangu

Village: Sumedha

P.O:- Balgi Project

Dist- Korba

APPLICANT

Versus

South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Through Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Banki Colliery

Post: Banki Mongra,

Dist. Korba (CG)

NON-APPLICANTS

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

473

ORDER

(Passed on this 27^Th day of December-2023.)

1. The workman Shyam Das Kurre has filed the petition under section 2A(2&3) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947

against his allegedly unlawful disengagement.

2. After registering a case on the basis of the petition, notices were sent to the parties.

3. Parties appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defence.

4. It is the case of the workman, as put up in his statement of claim, that the management of South Eastern coalfields

Ltd is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd and is involved in production and dispatch of coal in the state of Chhattisgarh

and M.P. The Workman was first appointed as category 1 general mazdoor in the year 1975 and had been in an

employment of the management till the date of his dismissal from service which is against law according to him. He

was falsely implicated in a first information report registered against him and his family members in P.S.Banki

Moghra District Korba Chhattisgarh registered under section 323/326/149 IPC with the relation to an incident

occurred in his native village Sumedha. He was wrongly convicted for the charges mentioned in the first information

report by the Court of Judicial Magistrate first-class wide judgment dated July 17, 2001. He preferred of criminal

appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge Bilaspur, which was registered as Criminal appeal number 129/2001 which

was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur. Thereafter, he filed a Criminal Revision

number 343/2004 Phattey & others Vs State before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. His sentence and

conviction both were stayed by Hon’ble High Court by order dated March 30, 2005. It is further, the case of the

workman that he was in jail in this case, for a total period of 19 days with effect from June 26, 2004 to July 14, 2004.

It is further, the case of the Workman that the management issued a chargesheet him on October 24, 2005 despite the

fact that his conviction was already stayed by Hon’ble High Court before the date the chargesheet was issued against

him. Charge against him was that he was convicted for criminal offence by Court of law involving moral

turpitude, which is misconduct and renders him liable for dismissal from service under paragraph 26.8 of

standing orders governing his service conditions. He was asked to undergo an enquiry though he had already

submitted that his conviction itself was listed by Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the disqualification attached to him on

the basis of his conviction was not attracted against him. He placed this fact and submission before the enquiry officer

during the enquiry but the enquiry officer wrongly submitted a report of enquiry, holding him guilty for the charge of

misconduct under paragraph 26.8 of standing order. The disciplinary authority also passed sentence of his dismissal

from service under paragraph 26.8 of standing orders ignoring his case that the disqualification consequent to

conviction was not attracted because the conviction itself was stayed by Hon’ble High Court. According to the

workman, the charge for which he was convicted was not an act of moral turpitude. Hence, paragraph 26.8 of his

standing order was not applicable to him. Secondly, since his conviction was stayed, the disqualification consequent

to conviction could not be attributed to him. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that , holding his dismissal against

law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

Case of management, as mentioned in its written statement of defence, is mainly that he was prosecuted by the state,

along with others before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Khat ghora in criminal case number 2649/97 u/s 326/149,

148 /149 , 323 /149 IPC and was convicted for the charges wide judgment and sentence dated July 17, 2001. He was

awarded rigourous imprisonment for three years and fined Rs. 5000/- along with co-accuseds for the charge under

section 326/149 IPC, further, was sentenced with a fine of Rs. 5000/-for the charge under section 148 IPC and with

find of Rs. 1000 /-for the charge under section 323/149 IPC, failing which rigourous imprisonment for three months.

Criminal appeal against this conviction and sentence was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge

Bilaspur in Criminal appeal number 129/01 filed by the workman and co-convicts and the sentence as well conviction

recorded by the Court of Magistrate was upheld. He filed a Criminal Revision number 343/04 before High Court of

Chhattisgarh. Hon’ble High Court was pleased to stay the order of his conviction as well the sentence wide its order

dated March 30, 2005. According to management, the outcome of the Criminal Revision pending before Hon’ble

High Court was not disclosed by the workman in his statement of claim. It is further, the case of management that a

departmental enquiry was conducted by the management in the light of paragraph 28.6 of standing order in which the

workman was given full opportunity to put his case. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated April 04,

2006, which was served on the workman and after hearing his side, the dismissal order was passed by the disciplinary

authority on April 27 2006. According to management, a convicted person is not entitled to be retained in service till

his conviction was set aside by a court of law.

5. Workman filed his rejoinder in which he mainly reiterated his claim.

The Following issues were framed by my learned predecessor, while his order dated October 26, 2016-

1-Whether the enquiry conducted against the Workman is just proper and legal?

2-Whether the charges imposed against the Workman are proved from evidence?

3-Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against the Workman is proper and legal?

474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4-If not, what relief the Workman is entitled to?

6. The workman filed his affidavit in evidence. He was cross-examined by management. He filed documents which

are admitted by management. They have been marked Ex W1 to ExW7. They are- dismissal order, order of Hon’ble

High Court dated July 9, 2004, order of Hon’ble High Court dated March 30, 2005, chargesheet dated October 24,

2005, reply dated October 26, 2005 to the chargesheet, later dated August 1, 2005 addressed to Assistant Labour

Commissioner (all Copies). Management has examined its witness who has been cross-examined from the workman

side. Management has proved Ex M1 to Ex M12 which are enquiry proceedings, chargesheet, reply, dismissal order

etc.

7. During the course of the proceedings, the workman died and his legal representatives have been brought on record.

8. The case was fixed for argument on preliminary issue. Learned counsel Sri R.Mukhopadhyay appeared from the

side of Workman and learned counsel Sri Anup Nayyar appeared from the side of management. Both the sides and

agreed that final arguments can be heard and the reference can be decided after hearing final argument itself because

the facts are almost admitted by the parties and the case rests on certain law points only. Hence, with the consent of

learned counsel for both the sides, final arguments were heard. I have also gone through the record.

9. Learned counsel for workman has relied on following case laws-

1-Ravikant V.Patil Vs Sarwabhoma S.Bagli (2007)1 SCC 673 Para 15&17.

2-Navjot Singh Siddhu Vs State ofPunjab(2007)2 SCC 574 Para 4,5,6.

3-M/S Glaxo Industries Vs Labour Court (1984)1 SCC 1 Para 5,7,9,13,18,22,24.

4-A.L.Kalra Vs Prpoject & Equipment Corpn (1984)3 SCC316 Para33,32,31.

5-Vijai Singh Vs State of U.P.& others (2012)5 SCC 242. Para 20 &21.

10. Learned counsel for management has referred to following case laws-

1-Kalabharti Advertising Vs Hemant Vimalnath & others (2010)9 SCC437 Para 23.

2- Dy Manager Collegiate Education Vs Nagoor Meera (1995) SCC 377 Para 9.

11. Issue number one –

The workman has been charged for misconduct under paragraph 26.8 of standing orders framed under National coal

wage agreement. This provision reads as follows.

Conviction for a criminal offence involving act of moral turpitude.

Learned counsel for the workman has attacked the the departmental enquiry officer on two grounds mainly. They are

firstly, since conviction was stayed, the disqualification attached with the conviction had come to an end and

secondly, the charges were not acts of moral turpitude. Learned counsel for management has controverted these

arguments with counter argument that finally the Criminal Revision was dismissed and order of conviction was

affirmed by Hon’ble High Court. Hence, any interim order staying the conviction merged in the final order and the

conviction of the workman was for an act of moral turpitude. He has further submitted that no employer could afford

a convicted person in his employment.

From the plain reading of enquiry papers and his statements of witnesses from both the sides on enquiry, it comes out

that the procedural formalities, required to be observed in a departmental enquiry, have been observed in the enquiry

against the Workman in the departmental enquiry against the Workman in the case in hand. He has been given show

cause notice, his reply has been taken, he has been served the chargesheet, he has been given full opportunity to have

his say during the enquiry and has also been served the copy of enquiry report. He has also been given opportunity by

the disciplinary authority to have his say, before passing any punishment order against him for the misconduct and

has availed it. Hence, procedurally the enquiry cannot be held to have suffered by any infirmity or irregularity. The

main issue is that when admittedly, before the departmental enquiry was initiated, the conviction of the workman was

stayed by Hon’ble High Court, was it at all legal for the management to hold enquiry for a misconduct, the basis of

which was conviction of the workman in a criminal case under section149, 149 r/w 323 & 149 r/w 326 IPC though

appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the court of appeal and sentence as well conviction

where he stayed by Hon’ble High Court in a Criminal Revision against the order of appellate court upholding the

conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate.

In the case of Ravi Kant as Patil (supra) and Navjote Singh Sidhu (supra), and referred to by the learned counsel

for the workman, it has been held that effect of staying order of conviction would render the order of conviction non-

operating from the date of stay and consequently the disqualification arising out of conviction would also ceased to

operate. As submitted by learned counsel, the conviction of the workman was stayed. Hence the disqualification

regarding his continuing in service of management had also ceased to operate. It is further, the argument of learned

counsel that since the workman was disqualified to continue in an employment of management because he was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

475

convicted for a criminal charge, this disqualification ceased to operate from the date the order regarding staying his

conviction was passed by Hon’ble High Court. Hence, as submitted by learned counsel, the charge of misconduct as

mentioned above, and the departmental enquiry for the charge could not be held legal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for management has submitted that ultimately, the Criminal Revision was

dismissed and the conviction was confirmed by Hon’ble High Court, though he admits that sentence were reduced to

period undergone which was 19 days in the case in hand. As submitted by learned counsel, the order staying

conviction was an interim order, which merged in the final order confirming the conviction. In the case of Kalabharti

(supra) referred to by the learned counsel for management on this point, following observation of Hon’ble the Apex

Court required to be reproduced as follows-

“it is not permissible for a party to file a writ petition, obtaining certain orders during pendency of the petition

and withdraw the same without getting proper adjudication of the issue involved therein and insist that

benefits of interim orders over consequential orders passed in pursuance of the interim order passed by the

writ court would continue. The benefit of interim order automatically gets withdrawn/neutralised on

withdrawal of the said petition. In such a case concept of restitution becomes applicable otherwise the party

would continue to get the benefit of interim order, even after losing the case in court.”

In the case referred, certain interim orders were obtained in a writ petition and after availing benefit under the interim

orders, the writ petition was withdrawn. Hon’ble the Apex Court disapproved such an act. Hence, it is clear that this

judgment does not help the case of management. Undisputed between the parties is the fact that the Criminal Revision

was decided much after the date of superannuation of the workman. The principal of law laid down by Hon’ble the

Apex Court in the cases referred to by learned counsel for workman are more close to the facts of case in hand .

Hence, the action of holding departmental enquiry for misconduct on the ground of criminal conviction when the

conviction itself was stayed cannot be held justified in law.

In the other case of Dy. Director of education (supra)referred t o by the Learned Counsel for management, paragraph

of the judgment quoted by him is as follows-

This extract is taken from Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera, (1995) 3 SCC 377 :

1995 SCC (L&S) 686 : (1995) 29 ATC 574 at page 381

“9. The Tribunal seems to be of the opinion that until the appeal against the conviction is disposed of, action

under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is not permissible. We see no basis or justification for the said

view. The more appropriate course in all such cases is to take action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article

311(2) once a government servant is convicted of a criminal charge and not to wait for the appeal or revision, as the

case may be. If, however, the government servant-accused is acquitted on appeal or other proceeding, the order can

always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would

have been entitled to had he continued in service. The other course suggested, viz., to wait till the appeal, revision and

other remedies are over, would not be advisable since it would mean continuing in service a person who has been

convicted of a serious offence by a criminal court. It should be remembered that the action under clause (a) of the

second proviso to Article 311(2) will be taken only where the conduct which has led to his conviction is such that it

deserves any of the three major punishments mentioned in Article 311(2). As held by this Court in Shankar

Dass v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 358 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 444 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 242] : (SCC p. 362, para 7)”

“Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution confers on the Government the power

to dismiss a person from service ‘on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge’.

But that power like every other power has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably. Surely, the Constitution

does not contemplate that a government servant who is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-parking area

should be dismissed from service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to be heard on the question of penalty since

clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) makes the provisions of that article inapplicable when a penalty

is to be imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal

charge. But the right to impose a penalty carries with it the duty to act justly.”

It is clear that the facts and issues involved in the referred case are different hence this judgment also does not help

him.

Accordingly, in the light of above discussion and findings, the departmental enquiry is held against law in the

case in hand and issue number one is answered accordingly.

12. Issue number two –

As regards issue number two, whether the charge of criminal conviction for an act of moral turpitude was proved

against the Workman or not, it should be kept in mind that dispute in this case is whether the act for which the

Workman was convicted was an act of moral turpitude or not.

476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The standing orders do not define what are the acts of moral turpitude. The General Clauses Act also does not define

what are the acts of moral turpitude. Hence, we will have to go by the dictionary meaning or the established social

norms.

Following observations of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of The State Bank Of India And Ors. vs P.

Soupramaniane CIVIL APPEAL No. 7011 of 2009 on 26 April, 2019 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179282359

require to be mentioned here and are being mentioned as follows-

“Though we do not agree with the reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the order of discharge of the

Respondent from service, it is necessary to examine whether Section 10 (1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act is

applicable to the facts of the case. Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person from

continuing in service in a bank. The conundrum that arises in this case is whether the conviction of the Respondent

under Section 324 IPC can be said to be for an offence involving moral turpitude.

Moral Turpitude’ as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) is as follows:

“The Act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the private and social duties which man owes his follow man, or to

society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.Implies

something immoral in itself regardless of it being punishable by law; restricted to the gravest offences, consisting of

felonies, infamous crimes, and those that are malum in se and disclose a depraved mind.”

According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, ‘Moral Turpitude’ is :

“An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to

society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”

Burton Legal Thesaurus defines ‘Moral Turpitude’ as :

“Bad faith, bad repute, corruption, defilement, delinquency, discredit, dishonor, shame, guilt, knavery, misdoing,

perversion, shame, ice, wrong.” 3 p. 1008 4 p. 1517

There is no doubt that there is an obligation on the Management of the Bank to discontinue the services of an

employee who has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude. Though every

offence is a crime against the society, discontinuance from service according to the Banking Regulation Act can

be only for committing an offence involving moral turpitude.

Acts which disclose depravity and wickedness of character can be categorized as offences involving moral turpitude.

Whether an offence involves moral turpitude or not depends upon the facts and the circumstances of the case.

Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an offence involving moral turpitude are:

a) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience or society in general;

b) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one, and

c) Whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrators could be considered to be of a

depraved character or a person .The other important factors that are to be kept in mind to conclude that an

offence involves moral turpitude are-the person who commits the offence; the person against whom it is

committed; the manner and circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed; and the values of the

society.

13. According to the National Incident – Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a crime data collection system used in

the United States of America, each offence belongs to one of the three categories which are: crimes against persons,

crimes against property, and crimes against society. Crimes against persons include murder, rape, and assault where

the victims are always individuals. The object of crimes against property, for example, robbery and burglary is to

obtain money, property, or some other benefits. Crimes against society for example gambling, prostitution, and drug

violations, represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activities. Conviction of a crime

involving moral turpitude is a ground for deportation under the Immigration Law in the United States of America. To

qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude for such purpose, it requires both reprehensible conduct and

scienter, whether with specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness or recklessness.

14. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can straightaway be termed as involving moral

turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of Corruption of Act, NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our

consideration in this case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involving

moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that every assault is

not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of

assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of

a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the victim may may result in an offence involving moral

turpitude. In the instant case, there was no motive for the Respondent to the death of the victims. The criminal

courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

477

the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the Respondent does not involve moral

turpitude. As the Respondent is not guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be

discharged from service.

15. For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.”

In its judgment in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs Regional Manager Punjab National Bank (2010)8

SCC573, the Supreme Court has made some observations in this respect. Paragraph 22 to 24 of this judgment are

being reproduced as follows-

This extract is taken from Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 : (2010) 2 SCC

(L&S) 674 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 861 at page 580

23. “Moral turpitude” means per Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 2004):

“Conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. In the area of legal ethics, offenses involving moral

turpitude—such as fraud or breach of trust. … Also termed moral depravity. …

‘Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful wickedness—so extreme a departure from ordinary standards

of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been

defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to

another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.’ ”

(emphasis in original)

24. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(1996) 4 SCC 17 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 583 : AIR 1996 SC 3300] this

Court has observed as under : (SCC p. 21, para 12)

“12. ‘Moral turpitude’ is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct

which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity.”

The aforesaid judgment in Pawan Kumar [(1996) 4 SCC 17 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 583 : AIR 1996 SC 3300] has been

considered by this Court again in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola [(1997) 4 SCC 1 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 897]

and placed reliance on Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector [AIR 1959 All 71] wherein it has been

held as under:

“The expression ‘moral turpitude’ is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice,

honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person

charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it

would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes

to his fellow men or to the society in general. If therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a

duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he

still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It

will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man.”

16. In view of the above, it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good

morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude

impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked and base activities.”

The other judgment of the case of Glaxo Industries (supra) referred to by Learned Counsel for workman,the

referred paras are being reproduced as follows-

This extract is taken from Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, (1984) 1 SCC 1 : 1984 SCC

(L&S) 42 at page 14

“Even where a disorderly or riotous behaviour without the premises of the factory constitutes misconduct, every

such behaviour unconnected with employment would not constitute misconduct within the relevant standing order.

Therefore, even where the standing order is couched in a language which seeks to extend its operation far beyond the

establishment, it would none the less be necessary to establish causal connection between the misconduct and the

employment. And that is the ratio of the decision, and not that wherever the misconduct is committed ignoring the

language of the standing order if it has some impact on the employment, it would be covered by the relevant standing

order. In order to avoid any ambiguity being raised in future and a controversial interpretation question being raised,

we must make it abundantly clear and incontrovertible that the causal connection in order to provide linkage between

the alleged act of misconduct and employment must be real and substantial, immediate and proximate and not remote

or tenuous. An illustration would succinctly bring out the difference. One workman severely belaboured another for a

(sic) duty on the next day. Would this absence permit the employer to charge the assailant for misconduct as it (sic)

had on the working in the industry. The answer is in the negative. The employer cannot take advantage to weed out

workman for incidents that occurred far away from his establishment.”

478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Now coming to the proved facts and circumstances of the case in hand and analysing them in the light of the

principles of law laid down in the cases referred to above, following facts are established from evidence. They are

firstly, the incident, forming the basis of charge of misconduct that is conviction for a criminal charge involving act

of moral turpitude, did not occur in the premises of management, nor did it happen between the present Workman and

his co-workers including his senior and junior colleagues. Secondly, this incident occurred rather in his ancestral

village, far away from place of his work. Thirdly, it could between the extended family members of the workman

with respect to some family dispute. Fourthly, the workman was convicted for the charge under section 149 . Section

323 r/w 149 and section 149 r/w 326 IPC which goes to show that the workman was convicted because he was a

member of the unlawful assembly, who inflicted simple and previous injury to the injured in prosecution of common

object of the unlawful assembly. That is to say, the allegation that it was he who himself inflicted the injury was not

there against the Workman, rather he was held vicariously liable for the acts of unlawful assembly being a member of

that assembly. This is also nowhere in the evidence that any weaker section of society or children or women were

injured in that incident. Testing these facts on the parameters regarding ascertainment on the point of acts of moral

turpitude, definitely, these facts and charges cannot be said to be acts of moral turpitude by any parameter. This is

also worth mentioning here that the ultimate sentence for the offences above mentioned was period of 19 days in

custody at investigation/trial. Hence, on the basis of a discussion, it is held that since the conviction of the

workman was not for an act of moral turpitude, misconduct as mentioned in paragraph 26.8 of his standing

order is not proved and issue number two is answered accordingly.

17. Issue number three-

In the light of findings recorded when the misconduct as alleged against the Workman has been held not proved, the

point arises for consideration is what relief the Workman is entitled to?

The relevant paragraphs of the season of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 are being reproduced as follows-

This extract is taken from Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC

324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 719 at page 354

37. After noticing several precedents to which reference has been made hereinabove, the two-Judge Bench observed :

(J.K. Synthetics case [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] , SCC pp. 448-50, paras 17-21)

“17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, ‘continuity of service’ and

‘consequential benefits’ should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions

as a ‘consequential benefit’ to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit

of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualised

while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or tribunals direct reinstatement, they

should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether ‘continuity of service’ and/or

‘consequential benefits’ should also be directed.

18. Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the question will

be whether back wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if so the percentage). That depends upon

the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during the relevant period on

account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note of while awarding back wages,

in addition to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh [Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5

SCC 591 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 716] and Uday Narain Pandey [U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain

Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] . Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he

was not gainfully employed from the date of his termination. While an employee cannot be asked to prove the

negative, he has to at least assert on oath that he was neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business or

venture and that he did not have any income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. But there is, however,

no obligation on the terminated employee to search for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may.

18. But the cases referred to above, where back wages were awarded, related to termination/retrenchment which

were held to be illegal and invalid for non-compliance with statutory requirements or related to cases where the

Court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to victimisation. The decisions relating to back

wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may have no application to the case like the present one,

where the termination (dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement) is by way of punishment for misconduct

in a departmental enquiry, and the court confirms the finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the

punishment being of the view that it is excessive, and awards a lesser punishment, resulting in the reinstatement

of employee. Where the power under Article 226 or Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (or any other

similar provision) is exercised by any court to interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is excessive and

the employee deserves a lesser punishment, and a consequential direction is issued for reinstatement, the court is

not holding that the employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The court is merely

exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and in

force. When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

479

reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is directed, it can be

effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of punishment (in which event, there is no

continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was imposed (in

which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to continuity of service). What requires to be noted in

cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from

cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if

reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore,

where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of

service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases

where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from

imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may

amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct

committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is

directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like

increments, promotions, etc.

19. But there are two exceptions. The first is where the court sets aside the termination as a consequence of

employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Second is where the court reaches a

conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid

of the employee or victimise him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or

intention. In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases

of an illegal termination.

20. In this case, the Labour Court found that a charge against the employee in respect of a serious misconduct

was proved. It, however, felt that the punishment of dismissal was not warranted and therefore, imposed a lesser

punishment of withholding the two annual increments. In such circumstances, award of back wages was neither

automatic nor consequential. In fact, back wages was not warranted at all.”

21. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

21.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule.

21.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating

authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of

misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar

other factors.

21.3. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent

with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was

disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages.

However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any

misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full

back wages.

21.4. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of

the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman,

then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the

superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award

passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the

entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts

must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer

and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his

wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.

21.5. In a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory

authority on the premise that finalisation of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties

are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the

disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an

employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination

of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in most of these

cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of

best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who can ill-afford the luxury

of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the

course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979)

2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] .

480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21.6. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)

651] that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio

of the judgments of three-Judge Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC

(L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 :

1981 SCC (L&S) 16] referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also

against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.

It is established from the record that after attaining the age of superannuation, the workman expired and at

present, his legal representatives are pursuing the case. Since the workman is no more at present and he had already

attained the age of superannuation, his reinstatement in job cannot be done. Accordingly, holding the action of

management, dated April 27, 2006 in dismissing the workman against law and unjustified, he is held entitled to

the back wages and all service benefits, retirral and post retirral, treating himself to be in continuous service

till the date of his superannuation. Issue number three is answered accordingly.

AWARD

Holding the action of management, dated April 27, 2006 in dismissing the workman against law and

unjustified, he is held entitled to the back wages and all service benefits, retirral and post retirral, treating

himself to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation. Issue number three is answered

accordingly. No order as to cost.

P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 205.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 90 /2016) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/66/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 205.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No.90/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/66/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/90/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Coal India Pensioners Association,

Branch Bishrampur Area,

Qtr No. 1B-32, Bishrampur

Distt- Surajpur (CG) -497226

Workman

Versus

The General Manager

SECL, Bishrampur Area

PO- Bishrampur Colliery

Distt- Surajpur(CG) -497226

Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

481

AWARD

(Passed on this 8^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 29/09/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

No. L-22012/66/2016(IR(CM-II)) dt.29/09/2016 . The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the action on the part of General Manager, Bishrampur area of SECL, in withholding the

terminal benefits after retirement on quarter retention ground such as leave encashment and other

dues as eligible in respect of Shri Govind Soni, Ex-Vehicle Driver espoused by the President, Coal

India Pensioners Association, Bishrampur Branch is legal, appropriate and justified? If not, whether it

is appropriate to recover the terminal dues from the employer.?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. The association appeared and

filed his statement of claim wherein it was stated thatt the workman Govind Ram Soniretired from the services of

management after attaining the age of superannuation but the management has not paid his retirral dues completely

and has requested that he be held entitled to receive the dues.did not file any statement of claim.

Management has filed its written statement of defence, wherein it has stated that firstly the applicant union that is

Coal India Pensioners Association is not a registered trade union as it has no locus stand to raise the dispute and the

reference may be answered against the applicant filed only on this ground.

It has further been pleaded that the reference is barred due to delay and latches on the part of the claimant side. It is

further, the case of management that the claimant workman was employed as office superintendent with the

management. He was allotted a residential accommodation by virtue of his employment. He got superannuation. He

was under obligation to hand over the vacant possession of the house allotted to him during his service time after he

superannuated, but he failed to do it and retained possession of the said house. Eviction proceedings were initiated

against him before the estate officer and eviction order was passed on February 20, 2015 directing him to hand over

vacant possession of the said house and also pay the arrears of rent as well the compensation for unauthorised use of

the accommodation. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the District Judge Surajpur , while his order dated

September 9, 2016 In a writ petition No WP(PIL)53/2016 , the Honourable High Court of Chhattigarh issued

directions to get the accommodations vacated from the undersized occupants within the time frame.

According to the management, the applicant workman is under obligation to pay penal rent and municipal as well.

Electricity charges for the accommodation till date of handing over of position of the said accommodation by the

applicant workman, which he has not paid and against this dues, fees, leave encashment and settle in allowance has

been withheld by the management. According to management, able after withholding his dues as mentioned above,

there is still a recovery against the applicant workman. Management has a accordingly requested that the reference is

answered against the applicant workman.

The management has filed an affidavit of its witness which is on record, wherein the witness has supported the claim

of management. None appeared from the side of workman for cross-examination of management witness an

opportunity of the applicant workman to cross-examine the management witness was closed.

At the time of argument, none appeared from the side of workman. I have heard the argument of Sri Anup Nair for

management and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

Since applicant side has not filed any evidence in support of its claim, the case of workman is held not proved. From

the pollution of affidavit of management witness, the case of management is held proved. Hence, in the light of above

discussion and finding, the reference deserves to be answered against the applicant workman and is answered

accordingly, holding the action of management is not against law.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 206.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 88 /2016) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/64/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 206.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No.88/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/64/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/88/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Coal India Pensioners Association,

Branch Bishrampur Area,

Qtr No. IB-32, Bishrampur

Distt- Surajpur (CG)-497226

Workman

Versus

The General Manager

SECL,Bishrampur Area,

PO- Bishrampur Colliery

Distt-Surajpur (CG) -497226

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 26^th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 29/09/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

reference number L-22012/64/2016 (IR(CM-II) dt.29/09/2016 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action on the part of General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL in

withholding the terminal benefits viz. leave encashment, PLRs, transport allowance and

other terminal dues if any as per eligibility after retirement on illegal quarter retention

ground in respect of Shri R.K. Ghosh, Ex- Office Superitendent by deviating SECL company

quarter rule and the case espoused by the President, Coal India Pensioners Association,

Bishrampur Branch is legal, appropriate and justified? If not, whether it is appropriate to

recover above terminal dues from the employer as per Section 33-C(2) of ID act after

payment of penal rent charges etc. by the ex-workman concerned to the management till the

date of vacation of the quarter in the dispute?"

Undisputed facts in the case is that the workman retired from the service of management on 30-06-2012 he

did not vacant the residence allotted to him while in employment he did not pay any sent or any electricity,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

483

water supply bill and did not produced no dues certificate before the management hence his setting

allowance and some other dues where withheld by management against rent and bills.

The case of the workman union is that it is authorised to raise the dispute which has been contested by

management.

Both sides have filed affidavits in support of their claims.

Today the argument of Shri Arun Patel Learned Counsel of Union and Shri Anup Nair Learned Counsel of

Management has been heard by me and records have also been produced.

The main issue for termination is whether the management has the right to withhold the post retiral dues of

the workman in lieu of its claim to recover arrears of rent/ compensation for illegal occupation of residence

by the workman even after his retirement.

It comes out that eviction order was passed by prescribed authority directing the workman to pay penal

rent and electricity and water bill arrears and also to vacate the accommodation which was confirmed by

appellate court hence it is established that management has right to recover its dues as mentioned above.

Accordingly It is held that the action of management in withholding dues of the present workman is

justified; the reference and petition both are liable to be answered against the workman and are answered

accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 207.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 51 /2018) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/9/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 207.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 51/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[ No. L-22012/9/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/51/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Area President,

Koyla Shramik Sabha,

Johilla Area, Purana Colliery,

Guest House, Room No.02,

Pali, Dist Umaria (M.P)-484551

Workman

484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

Estate Officer, Pali Sub Area,

Johilla Arca of SECL,

Po-Pali, Distt Umaria (M.P)-484551

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 14^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 30/10/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

L-22012/9/2018(IR(CM-II)) dt.30/10/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action of the Estate Officer Sub Area Manager, Pali Sub Area, Johilla Arva of M/s South

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dist. Umaria (MP) in recovering the amount of Rs. 93156- vide letter no.

SECL/E.O./P.S.A./17/1212 08-02-2017 from the dues payable to Shri Matadeen Rajak, Ex-Haulage

Khalasi, retired on 01-07-2008 is fair, justified and legal? if not, what relief Shri Matadeen Rajak,

Ex-Handage Khalasi is entitled to?"

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. Despite service of notice on the

workman, he did not appear and did not file any statement of claim.

Management has filed its written statement of defence, wherein it has stated that firstly the applicant union that is

Koyla Shramik Sabha is not a registered trade union as it has no locus stand to raise the dispute and the reference may

be answered against the applicant filed only on this ground.

It has further been pleaded with the claimant workman retired with effect from July 01, 2008, whereas the present

dispute was raised in the year 2018 and the reference is barred due to delay and latches on the part of the claimant

side. It is further, the case of management that the claimant workman was employed as office superintendent with the

management. He was allotted a residential accommodation house number IC/42 by virtue of his employment. He got

superannuation on July 01, 2008. He was under obligation to hand over the vacant possession of the house allotted to

him during his service time after he superannuated, but he failed to do it and retained possession of the said house.

Eviction proceedings were initiated against him before the estate officer and eviction order was passed on February

08, 2017 directing him to hand over vacant possession of the said house and also pay the arrears of rent as well the

compensation for unauthorised use of the accommodation. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the District

Judge Surajpur , while his order dated September 9, 2016 In a writ petition No WP(PIL)53/2016 , the Honourable

High Court of Chhattigarh issued directions to get the accommodations vacated from the undersized occupants within

the timeframe.

According to the management, the applicant workman is under obligation to pay penal rent and municipal as well.

Electricity charges for the accommodation till date of handing over of position of the said accommodation by the

applicant, which he has not paid and against this dues, and recovery notice has been issued against him. Management

has accordingly requested that the reference is answered against the applicant workman.

The management has filed an affidavit of its witness which is on record, wherein the witness has supported the claim

of management. None appeared from the side of workman for cross-examination of management witness an

opportunity of the applicant workman to cross-examine the management witness was closed.

At the time of argument, none appeared from the side of workman. I have heard the argument of Sri Anup Nair for

management and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

Since applicant side has not filed any evidence in support of its claim, the case of workman is held not proved. From

the perusal of affidavit of management witness, the case of management is held proved. Hence, in the light of above

discussion and finding, the reference deserves to be answered against the applicant workman and is answered

accordingly, holding the action of management is not against law.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

485

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 208.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 87 /2016) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/63/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 208.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 87/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/63/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/87/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Coal India Pensioners Association,

Branch Bishrampur Area,

Qtr No. 1B-32, Bishrampur

Distt- Surajpur (CG) -497226

Workman

Versus

The General Manager

SECL, Bishrampur Area

PO- Bishrampur Colliery

Distt- Surajpur(CG) -497226

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 5^Th day of December-2023.)

As per letter dated 29/09/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number no.L-

22012/63/2016(IR(CM-II)) dt.29/09/2016 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action on the part of General Manager, Bisshrampur area of SECL in withholding the

terminal benefits after retirement on non-submission of no dues certificates such as leave

enchantments in respect of Shri Ram Bahadur Lama, Ex-Office Superintendent espoused by the

President, Coal India Pensioners Association, Bishrampur branch is legal, appropriate and justified?

If not, whether it is appropriate to recover the terminal dues from the employer?"

486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. Despite service of notice on the

workman, he did not appear and did not file any statement of claim.

Management has filed its written statement of defence, wherein it has stated that firstly the applicant union that is

Coal India Pensioners Association is not a registered trade union as it has no locus stand to raise the dispute and the

reference may be answered against the applicant filed only on this ground.

It has further been pleaded with the claimant workman retired with effect from January 31, 2011, whereas the present

dispute was raised in the year 2016 and the reference is barred due to delay and latches on the part of the claimant

side. It is further, the case of management that the claimant workman was employed as office superintendent with the

management. He was allotted a residential accommodation house number IC/42 by virtue of his employment. He got

superannuation on January 31, 2011. He was under obligation to hand over the vacant possession of the house allotted

to him during his service time after he superannuated, but he failed to do it and retained possession of the said house.

Eviction proceedings were initiated against him before the estate officer and eviction order was passed on February

20, 2015 directing him to hand over vacant possession of the said house and also pay the arrears of rent as well the

compensation for unauthorised use of the accommodation. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the District

Judge Surajpur , while his order dated September 9, 2016 In a writ petition No WP(PIL)53/2016 , the Honourable

High Court of Chhattigarh issued directions to get the accommodations vacated from the undersized occupants within

the timeframe.

According to the management, the applicant workman is under obligation to pay penal rent and municipal as well.

Electricity charges for the accommodation till date of handing over of position of the said accommodation by the

applicant workman on December 31, 2018 , which he has not paid and against this dues, fees, leave encashment and

settle in allowance has been withheld by the management. According to management, able after withholding his dues

as mentioned above, there is still a recovery against the applicant workman. Management has a accordingly requested

that the reference is answered against the applicant workman.

The management has filed an affidavit of its witness which is on record, wherein the witness has supported the claim

of management. None appeared from the side of workman for cross-examination of management witness an

opportunity of the applicant workman to cross-examine the management witness was closed.

At the time of argument, none appeared from the side of workman. I have heard the argument of Sri Anup Nair for

management and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

Since applicant side has not filed any evidence in support of its claim, the case of workman is held not proved. From

the pollution of affidavit of management witness, the case of management is held proved. Hence, in the light of above

discussion and finding, the reference deserves to be answered against the applicant workman and is answered

accordingly, holding the action of management is not against law.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 209.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 17 /2017) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/70/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 209.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No.17/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/70/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

487

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/17/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Coal India Pensioners Association,

Branch Bishrampur Area,

Qtr No. IB-32, Bishrampur

Distt- Surajpur (CG)-497226

Workman

Versus

The General Manager

SECL,Bishrampur Area,

PO- Bishrampur Colliery

Distt-Surajpur (CG) -497226

Management

C/05/2016 P.K. Ghosh Vs SECL (Leading Case)

and

R/17/2017 P.K. Ghosh Vs SECL.

ORDER/AWARD

(Passed on this 26^Th day of December-2023.)

Since the two cases are between the same parties and regarding the same dispute/facts, they have been

consolidated together via order dated 16.12.2021 and are being disposed by one common Order/ Award.

In case R/17/2017, As per letter dated 07/03/2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference

number L-22012/70/2016 (IR(CM-II) dt.07/03/2017 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the action on the part of General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL in withholding the

terminal benefits viz. leave encashment, PLRs, transport allowance and other terminal dues if any as

per eligibility after retirement on illegal quarter retention ground in respect of Shri R.K. Ghosh, Ex-

Office Superitendent by deviating SECL company quarter rule and the case espoused by the President,

Coal India Pensioners Association, Bishrampur Branch is legal, appropriate and justified? If not,

whether it is appropriate to recover above terminal dues from the employer as per Section 33-C(2) of

ID act after payment of penal rent charges etc. by the ex-workman concerned to the management till

the date of vacation of the quarter in the dispute?"

Undisputed facts in these two cases is that the workman retired from the service of management on 30-10-2010 he did

not vacant the residence allotted to him while in employment he did not pay any sent or any electricity, water supply

bill and did not produced no dues certificate before the management hence his setting allowance and some other dues

where withheld by management against rent and bills.

The case of the workman union is that it is authorised to raise the dispute which has been contested by management.

Both sides have filed affidavits in support of their claims.

Today the argument of Shri Arun Patel Learned Counsel of Union and Shri Anup Nair Learned Counsel of

Management has been heard by me and records have also been produced.

The main issue for termination is whether the management has the right to withhold the post retiral dues of the

workman in lieu of its claim to recover arrears of rent/ compensation for illegal occupation of residence by the

workman even after his retirement.

It comes out that eviction order was passed by prescribed authority directing the workman to pay penal rent and

electricity and water bill arrears and also to vacate the accommodation which was confirmed by appellate court hence

it is established that management has right to recover its dues as mentioned above. Accordingly It is held that the

action of management in withholding dues of the present workman is justified; the reference and petition both are

liable to be answered against the workman and are answered accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2024/MAGHA 21, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 Qjojh] 2024

का.आ. 210.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 05 /2016) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@01@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/70/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन एन., उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 05/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/70/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/C/05/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President,

Coal India Pensioners Association,

Branch Bishrampur Area,

Qtr No. IB-32, Bishrampur

Distt- Surajpur (CG)-497226

APPLICANT

Versus

The General Manager

SECL,Bishrampur Area,

PO- Bishrampur Colliery

Distt-Surajpur (CG) -497226

NON-APPLICANT

C/05/2016 P.K. Ghosh Vs SECL (Leading Case)

and

R/17/2017 P.K. Ghosh Vs SECL.

ORDER/ AWARD

(Passed on this 26^Th day of December-2023.)

Since the two cases are between the same parties and regarding the same dispute/facts, they have been

consolidated together via order dated 16.12.2021 and are being disposed by one common Order/ Award.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : फरवरी 10, 2024/माघ 21, 1945

489