742 GI/2024

(543)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 6]

नइ ददल् ली, फरवरी 11—फरवरी 17, 2024, िजनवार/माघ 22—माघ 28, 1945

No. 6]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 11—FEBRUARY 17, 2024, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 22–MEGHA 28, 1945

आस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक अदेि और ऄजधसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

नइ ददल् ली, 16 जनवरी, 2024

का.अ. 244.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के

ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय ऄप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क बोडड के ऄधीन, जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों,

जजनके 80 प्रजतित से ऄजधक कमडचाररयों ने जहन्दी का कायड साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को ऄजधसूजचत करती हज:

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, अगरा

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, ऄृील आलाहाबाद

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, ऄृील लखनउ

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, ऄहमदाबाद (ईत्तर)

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, आलाहाबाद

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, कानृुर

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, ृंचकुला, (लेखा ृरीक्षा)

मु्‍य अयुक्त, लखनउ जोन

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-01032024-252516

CG-DL-W-01032024-252516

544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, लखनउ, (लेखा ृरीक्षा)

10. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, लखनउ

11. केन्रीय माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क, वाराणसी

12. सीमा िुल्क, (जन.) जामनगर

13. सीमा िुल्क (जन.) मण्डल, गोरखृुर

14. सीमा िुल्क (जन.) मण्डल, नौतनवां

15. सीमा िुल्क (जन.) मण्डल, बरेली

16. सीमा िुल्क, (जन.) मण्डल लखनउ

17. सीमा िुल्क (जन.) मण्डल, वाराणसी

18. सीमा िुल्क, (जन.) लखनउ

19. कायाडलय अयुक्त (ऄृील), केंरीय माल और सेवा कर अयुक्तालय, चंडीगढ़

[फा. सं. इ-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-ऄजधसूचना]

ले.कनडल एम.के.जसह, जनदेिक (राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2024

S.O. 244.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs,Department of revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi:

1. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Agra

2. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Appeal Allahabad

3. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Appeal Lucknow

4. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Ahmedabad (North)

5. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Allahabad

6. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Kanpur

7. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Panchkula, (Audit)

8. Chief Commissioner, Lucknow Zone

9. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow, (Audit)

10. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow

11. Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Varanasi

12. Customs, (Pre.) Jamnagar

13. Customs (Pre.) Division, Gorakhpur

14. Customs (Pre.) Division, Nautanwa

15. Customs (Pre.) Division, Bareilly

16. Customs, (Pre.) Division Lucknow

17. Customs (Pre.) Division, Varanasi

18. Customs, (Pre.) Lucknow

19. Office of the Principal commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Service Tax Appeals

Commissionerate, Chandigarh

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]

Lt. col. M. K. SINGH, Director (OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

545

(व्यय जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2024

का.अ. 245.—केन् र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजन के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम के जनयम 10 के ईृ-

जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखाृरीक्षा और लेखा जवभाग के तहत प्रधान महालेखाकार (लेखा एंव हकदारी)

झारखंड, रांची का कायाडलय, जजसमें ऄस्ट् सी प्रजतित कमडचाररयों ने ंहदी का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया हज, को

एतद्द्वारा ऄजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा. सं. ए-12034/03/2023-इजी]

ृरमा सेन, ऄृर सजचव

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2024

S.O 245.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Office purpose of the

Union) Rules, the Central Government hereby notifies the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts and

Entitlement) Jharkhand, Ranchi under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department wherein eighty percent of the staff

have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. A-12034/03/2023-EG]

PARAMA SEN, Addl. Secy.

जवदेि मंत्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 7 फ़रवरी 2024

का.अ. 246.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के ऄनुसरण में वजधाजनक अदेि ।

एतद् द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के दूतावास, जकाताड मे^ेँ मनीष िमाड, सहायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी, को ददनांक 07

फ़रवरी 2024 से सहायक कोंसुलर ऄजधकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवडहन के जलए प्राजधकृत करती हज।

[फा. सं. T.4330/01/2024(06)]

एस.अर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2024

S.O. 246.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

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

with effect from 07 February 2024.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2024(06)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV)

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नइ ददल् ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2023

का.अ. 247.—केन्र सरकार, एतद् द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए झारखंड रा्य सरकार, गृह, कारागार

546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग की ऄजधसूचना सं. 10/सीबीअइ-416/2021-474/रांची, ददनांक 15.02.2022, ऄनुवती

िुजिृत्र सं. 10/सीबीअइ-416/2021-2010/रांची, ददनांक 20.05.2022 तथा िुजिृत्र सं. 10/सीबीअइ-416/2021-

5276/रांची, ददनांक 08.11.2023 के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 420/467/468/471/34

के तहत काररत ऄृराधों के जलए डोरंडा थाना (जजला रांची) में दजड मामला सं. 03/2019, ददनांक 02.01.2019 से

संबंजधत ऄृराध(धों) का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा

और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ऄन्वेषण करने

के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड रा्य में

करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/65/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुंदन नाथ,, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the, 29th December, 2023

S.O. 247.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. 10/CBI-416/2021-474/Ranchi dated 15.02.2022, subsequent

Corrigendum No. 10/CBI-416/2021-2010/Ranchi dated 20.05.2022 and Corrigendum No. 10/CBI-416/2021-

5276/Ranchi dated 08.11.2023, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for

investigation into the offence(s) relating to Doranda P. S. (Ranchi District) Case No. 03/2019 dated 02.01.2019

registered for committing offences U/s 420/467/468/471/34 of IPC, and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/65/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नइ ददल् ली, 3 जनवरी, 2024

का.अ. 248.—केन्र सरकार, एतद् द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए राजस्ट्थान रा्य सरकार की ऄजधसूचना

सं. एफ.19(52)गृह-5/2023 ददनांक 05.12.2023, गृह (गृ.-v) जवभाग, जयृुर के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से, श्री नरेंर

कुमार राइ @ एन.के राइ एजीइ (कांरजक्ट) इ-8, कायाडलय गजररसन आंजीजनयर, एमइएस, कोटा राजस्ट्थान के जवरुि

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के ऄजधजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजधत) की धारा 7 के तहत

दंडनीय ऄृराध(धों) के संबंध में, सीबीअइ/एसीबी/जयृुर में दजड जिकायत सं. सीए0302023ए0109 से ईत्ृतन्न,

ऄृराध(धों) का ऄन्वेषण तथा ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा एवं/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र

एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्ते राजस्ट्थान रा्य में करती हज।

[फा.सं. 228/64/2023-एवीडी-II]

कुंदन नाथ, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the, 3rd January, 2024

S.O. 248.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(52)Home-5/2023 dated 05.12.2023, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offences(s) punishable under section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by the Act 16 of 2018) arising out of the complaint No.

CA0302023A0109 registered at CBI/ACB/Jaipur against Shri Narendra Kumar Rai @ N.K. Rai AGE (Contract) E-8,

O/o Garrison Engineer, MES, Kota Rajasthan and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/64/2023-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

547

नइ ददल् ली, 12 जनवरी, 2024

का.अ. 249.—केन् र सरकार, एतद् द्वारा ददल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृना ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए झारखंड रा् य सरकार, गृह, कारागार

एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग, रांची, झारखंड की ऄजधसूचना सं. 10/सीबीअइ-416/2023-5936/रांची, ददनांक

14.12.2023 के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से श्री जवन्सेंट सजमुऄल सोरेन्ग सुृुत्र श्री ऄजीत सोरेन्घ द्वारा श्री संजय कुमार,

डाक सहायक, एसएसृीओ, डाल्टनगंज, के जवरुि भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (वषड 2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की

धारा 7 के तहत काररत ऄृराधों के जलए ददनांक 22.11.2023 को दजड करायी गइ जिकायत, जजसके अधार ृर ददनांक

17.12.2023 को एक सीबीअइ मामला सं. अरसी0242023ए0012 दजड दकया गया हज, से ईत्ृन्न ऄृराध (धों) का

ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से ददनांक 17.12.2023 से)

समस्ट्त झारखंड रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/02/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंदन नाथ, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the, 12th January, 2024

S.O. 249.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.10/C.B.I-416/2023-5936/Ranchi dated 14.12.2023, Home,

Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 17.12.2023) to the whole State of Jharkhand

for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 22.11.2023 lodged by Shri Vincent Samuel

Soreng S/o Ajit Sorengh, against Shri Sanjay Kumar, Postal Assistant, SSPO, Daltonganj u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 (as

amended in 2018), based on which a CBI case RC0242023A0012 has been registered on 17.12.2023 and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/02/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

नइ ददल् ली, 12 जनवरी, 2024

का.अ. 250.—केन्र सरकार, एतद् द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ओजडिा रा्य 9 सरकार की

ऄजधसूचना सं. 46891/ृाटड1-गृह-सीृीएम-जवजवध-0053-2023/सीृी&एम, ददनांक 30.11.2023, ओजडिा रा्य

सरकार, गृह जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से श्री ईददत जेना ईफड ईददत ईफड ईददत जबददका, ग्राम मुकुंदृुर, जजला

रायगढ़ के संददग्ध जनवासी और एम. देबाजसस नायक ईफड देबाजसस ईफड देबाजसस नायक, जजला रायगढ़, ओजडिा के

संददग्ध जनवासी, जो ऄन्य ऄज्ञात व्यजक्तयों, जजनमें एक जिरटि नागररक भी िाजमल हैं, के साथ अृराजधक षड्यंत्र काररत

कर वषड 2016 और आससे अगे से ले कर अज की तारीख तक बच्चों को स्ट्ृष्ट प ृ से यौन दियाओं में संजलप्त होते ुएए दिाडने

वाले वाले ऑनलाआन बाल यौन िोषण की सामग्री (सीएसएएम) के सृजन, संग्रहण और प्रसार में संजलप्त हैं, के जवरुि

सूचना एवं प्रौद्योजगकी ऄजधजनयम, 2000 की धारा 67-बी और ृॉक्सो ऄजधजनयम, 2012 की धाराएेँ 14 & 15 के तहत

दण्डनीय ऄृराध(धों) का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा आस मामले के ऄन्वेषण करने के दौरान प्रकाि में अए दकसी ऄन्य

ऄृराध का ऄन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त ओजडिा रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/01/2024-एवीडी-II]

कुंदन नाथ, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the, 12th January, 2024

S.O. 250.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Odisha, issued vide Notification No.-46891/PT1-HOME-CPM-MISC-0053-2023/CP&M, dated

548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

30.11.2023 Government of Odisha, Home Department hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Odisha for investigation into the offence(s) punishable

under section 67-B of IT Act 2000, under section 14 & 15 of POCSO Act 2012 against Shri Udit Jena @ Udit @ Udit

Bidika, a suspected resident of village Mukundpur, Distt. Rayagada and M. Debasis Naik @ Debasis @ Debasis

Naik, suspected resident of Distt. Rayagada, Odisha who, in criminal conspiracy with unknown others including a

British National, are involved in creation, collection and circulation of online Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM),

depicting children in sexual explicit manner from the year 2016 onwards to till date and any other offence that may

come to the light during investigation of this case including any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or

in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/01/2024-AVD-II]

KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.

कोयला मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 251.—केंर सरकार, कारखाना ऄजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 63) की धारा 2 के खंड (ढ) के प्रथम

ईृबंध के खंड (iii) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों के ऄनुसरण में एतदद्वारा जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (3) में जनर्ददष्ट ऄजधकाररयों को

ईक्त ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में जनर्ददष्ट एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड (एनएलसीअइएल), जजसका ृंजीकृत कायाडलय सं.

135, इवीअर ृेररयार हाइ रोड, दकलृॉक, चेन्नइ -600010 में हज, के संबंजधत कारखाने या वकडिॉृ के "ऄजधष्ठाता" के

प ृ में जनयुक्त करती हज, ऄथाडतः-

ि.सं.

कारखाने का नाम (सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र)

ऄजधष्ठाता के प ृ में जनयुक्त दकए

जाने वाले ऄजधकारी का ृदनाम

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 50 मेगावाट सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र

ब्लॉक -1, नेयवेली

ईृ महा प्रबंधक/ महा प्रबंधक/

मु्‍य महा प्रबंधक

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 15 मेगावाट सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र

ब्लॉक -16, नेयवेली (जवल्लुददयानृट्टू मंददर के ृास )

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 40 मेगावाट सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र

ब्लॉक -5, नेयवेली

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 25 मेगावाट सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र

कोल्लीरुप्ृु, नेयवेली

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 10 मेगावाट सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र

डॉलगंज, ऄंडमान और जनकोबार द्वीृ समूह

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 10 मेगावाट सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र

ऄट्टमृहाड़, ऄंडमान और जनकोबार द्वीृ समूह

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड 10 मेगावाट कजजप्टव सौर जवद्युत संयंत्र, ब्लॉक

-28 एवं 29, नेयवेली

एनएलसी आंजडया जलजमटेड के ऄध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध जनदेिक एतदद्वारा संबंजधत ृदों ृर ऐसे ऄजधकाररयों को नाम से

नामांदकत करने के जलए प्राजधकृत हैं, जो कारखानों के ऄजधष्ठाताओं के प ृ में ृदनाजमत हैं, जजसा दक उृर बताया गया हज।

[फा. सं. 38026/1/2013-सीए II]

सीमा ग्रोवर, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

549

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 251.—In pursuance of the powers, conferred by clause (iii) of the first provision to clause (n) of Section

2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints oﬃcers speciﬁed in column (3) of

the Table below as ―Occupier‖ of the respective factory or workshop of NLC India Limited (NLCIL), speciﬁed in

column (2) of the said Table having its registered office at No.135, EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk,

Chennai-600 010, namely:

Sl. No.

Name of the Factory (Solar Power Plant)

Designation(s) of Officer to be

appointed as Occupier

NLC India Limited 50 MW Solar Power Plant,

Block-1, Neyveli

Deputy General Manager/ General

Manager/ Chief General Manager

NLC India Limited 15 MW Solar Power Plant,

Block-16, Neyveli (near Villudiyanpattu Temple)

NLC India Limited 40 MW Solar Power Plant,

Block-5, Neyveli

NLC India Limited 25 MW Solar Power Plant,

Kolliruppu, Neyveli

NLC India Limited 10 MW Solar Power Plant,

Dollgunj, Andaman & Nicobar Islands

NLC India Limited 10 MW Solar Power Plant,

Attampahad, Andaman & Nicobar Islands

NLC India Limited 10 MW Captive Solar Power Plant,

Block-28 & 29, Neyveli

2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of NLC India Limited is hereby authorized to nominate by name such

oﬃcers to the respective positions, who are designated as occupiers of the factories, as indicated above.

[F. No. 38026/1/2013-CA II]

SEEMA GROVER, Under Secy.

जवद्युत मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली,13 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 252.—केंरीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के ईृ जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन ृावर जग्रड कॉृोरेिन ऑफ

आंजडया जलजमटेड के जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित कमडचारीवृंद ने ंहदी का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया

हज, को एतदद्वारा ऄजधसूजचत करती हज:

ृावर जग्रड कॉृोरेिन ऑफ आंजडया जलजमटेड,

220/132 केवी जसजलगुड़ी ईृकेंर, जवद्युत नगर,

सजटेलाआट टाईनजिृ, जजला- जलृाइगुड़ी,

ृजिम बंगाल-734015

ृावर जग्रड कॉृोरेिन ऑफ आंजडया जलजमटेड,

400/220 के.वी. राजारहाट जीअइएस ईृकेंर, टोना,

ृोस्ट्ट- माजचभांगा, कािीृुर, ब्लॉक- भांगर-II,

जजला- दजक्षण 24 ृरगना, कोलकाता- 700135

550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ृावर जग्रड कॉृोरेिन ऑफ आंजडया जलजमटेड,

400/220/132 के.वी. मालदा ईृकेंर, मजलहा,

जजला- मालदा, ृजिम बंगाल- 732102

[फा. सं. 11011/01/9/2024-ंहदी]

धीरज कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, मु्‍य ऄजभयंता (इसी, इटी एवं इवी, ृीृीएम तथा प्रभारी राजभाषा)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2024

S.O. 252.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working

knowledge of Hindi:

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

220/132 KV Siliguri Substation, Vidyut Nagar,

Satellite Township, Dist.: Jalpaiguri,

West Bengal-734015

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

400/220 KV Rajarhat GIS Substation, Tona,

P.O-Machibhanga, Kashipur, Block-Bhangar-II,

Dist.-South 24 Paraganas, Kolkata-700135

3. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,

400/220/132 KV Malda Substation, Maliha,

Dist.-Malda, West Bengal-732102

[F. No. 11011/01/9/2024- Hindi]

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

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

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

ljdkj ंसगरेनी कोजलयरीज कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

हजदराबाद, ds iapkV

(

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la--,y- 22012/84/2018.vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]

ef.kdanu- ,u] mi funs'kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2018) 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-22012/84/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

551

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 129/2018

Between:

Sri Kothuri Rajkumar,

H.No.16-2-24, Bellampalli No.2 Basthi,

Tq. Asifabad,

Adilabad (Telangana) – 504 001.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Sreerampur Area, Sreerampur –Distt.

Mancherial – 504303.

… Respondent

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-22012/84/2018-IR(CM.II) dated 5.11.2018

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

the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I

Area, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli Dist(TS), in terminating the services of Sri Kothuri Rajkumar, Ex-

Badli Filler, RK-5 Inc., SCCL., Sreerampur Area with effect from 16.5.2011 is justified or not? If not,

to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 129/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent despite sufficient number of

opportunities have been provided to him. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not interested

in pursuing his case. 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, and corrected by me on this the 25^th day

of October, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2024

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

ंसगरेनी कोजलयरीज कंृनी जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

हजदराबाद, ds iapkV (

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/199/2007.vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]

ef.kdanu- ,u] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2024

S.O. 254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2007) 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-22012/199/2007 – 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 14^th day of December, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57/2007

Between:

The General Secretary,

(Sri Riyaz Ahmed),

Singareni Miners & Engg. Workers Union (HMS),

Qtr. No.C-34, Sector-I,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar – 505209.

….. Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam –I Divn.,

Godavarikhani.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. Ch. Venkat Raman & G.V. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeeth Reddy, Advocate

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

553

AWAR D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/199/2007-IR(CM-II) dated

24.9.2007 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 M/s SCCL in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect vide order No.CRP/PER/IR/D/99/7213 dated 14.9.2005 in respect of

Sri Jagiri Rajanna is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 57/2007 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows: It is submitted that the workman Sri Jagiri

Rajanna was initially appointed on 8.8.1992 as Badli Filler, thereafter he was made as General Mazdoor. While in

service the workman has appeared and passed various mining examinations, such as Mining Sirdar and Overman.

Accordingly, the workman was promoted as Mining Sirdar in 1996 and further promoted as Overman in the year

1998, since then the workman is being continued in the same post. While so a charge sheet dated14.9.2005 was

issued, alleging that, on 24.8.2004 in first shift/Relay-B, the workman was the District Overman for 4S/SS-20 District

and that, there was an accident occurred to Sri Thoka Kiran at 52 No. Dip slice, 47 1⁄2 LN/3D, while he was

shoveling at the phase, a coal peace measuring 2.35 meter length into 0.10-0.90 meters width into 0.10-0.35 meter

thick parted from the side and fell on his head, inflicting injuries 'contusion extending from lateral canthus of right

eye to occiput (deep puncture wound post aspect of neck)". Basing on the above incident, petitioner was alleged to

have violated the provisions of Regulation-43(1)(d), 43 (1)(e), 43 (8)(a), 190 of CMR 1957, Condition No.2.2 of

Permission Letter and also SSR cir.tech. 9/1985. On receipt of the above charge sheet, workman has submitted his

explanation on 16-11-2004 denying the charges. However, without considering any of the submissions made by the

workman a routine and mechanical enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report, holding

charges as proved. Consequently a show cause notice dated 4-8-2005 was issued, duly enclosing the report of the

enquiry officer, to which the workman has submitted his reply on 8-8-2005. However, without considering any of

the submissions made by the workman, an office order dated 14-9-2005 was issued, imposing a penalty of stoppage of

two increments with cumulative effect. Though, the Singareni Miners and Engineering Workers Union, to which the

workman is a member has requested the management to cancel the office order dated 14-9-2005, as the workman is

no way responsible for the accident occurred. However, as the management has not come forward to cancel the

proceeding dated 14-9-2005, union left with no other alternative except to raise an industrial dispute, which

ultimately ended in failure. Hence, this reference. It is submitted that, issuance of charge sheet and inviting

explanation is not a mere formality. Having issued the charge sheet, invited explanation, it is incumbent on the part

of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the explanation submitted by the workman in true perspective, only

thereafter authorities can decide, whether to conduct departmental enquiry or not. However, in the instant case,

without any application of mind, the respondent initiated enquiry, without even considering the submissions made by

the workman vide his reply dated 16-11-2004. This itself is an indication of predetermination on the part of the

respondent. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry, management examined five witnesses i.e, MW-1 to

MW-5. MW-1 is the Safety Officer, who stated to have conducted the preliminary enquiry, MW-2 is the Senior Under

Manager of the Mine. Either of them are eyewitnesses to the incident. Therefore, their evidence cannot be taken into

consideration, to prove the guilt on the part of the workman. In so far as MW-3 is concerned, he is a timber man,

who was at the same place where the accident occurred, MW-3 categorically deposed that "they have arranged stay

props to the overhangs on the south side of the phase and after dewatering the phase, Sardar and Overman have

arranged dressing and only thereafter the fillers were permitted to lift the coal. After blasting the phase, once again

the dressing was done in the presence of Sardar and Overman and even after such blast and dressing, the coal fillers

filled another 5 tubs of coal. Thereafter the Timber man have erected the supports. At that juncture, he heard the

huge sound and loud voices of fillers in the phase. Immediately he rushed to the spot and found one coal filler fell

down on the floor". Even MW-4 and MW-5 also deposed categorically that, the dressing was properly done and

props and chocks were erected, where ever the overhangs were there. In so far as the accident spot is concerned, there

were no overhangs. It is further submitted that the evidence of MW-3 to MW-5 clearly goes to show that, the

workman is no way responsible for the accident occurred and he has taken all the possible preventive measures,

which are to be taken as per the Coal Mines Regulations. However, ignoring the evidence of eyewitnesses ie., MW-3

to MW-5, the enquiry officer gave more importance and weight to the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2 and wholly

relying the evidence of MW-I and MW-2, the enquiry officer prepared his report. The manner and method in which

the Enquiry Officer submitted his report shows that he was predetermined and prejudged the issue. It is to submit

that, during the enquiry the workman categorically pleaded that not only himself, but even Sardar, Shot Firer have

taken all preventives required under Coal Mine Regulations, Mining Sardar has done inspection and secured the roof

and sites and he had taken all care to do so. Even the workman has taken utmost care, so as to secure the safety men

under his control and there was no lapse on his part in any manner. However, the enquiry officer curiously opined

554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that, ― the onus of proving that his subordinate officials are guiltless, shifted on to the charge sheeted employee.

However, he did not substantiate any way his claim with any sort of witness or circumstantial evidence". It is

submitted that, it is for the Presenting Officer to establish the charge with cogent evidence, but it is not for the

delinquent to disprove charges. As a result of the above wrong approach of the enquiry officer, the whole enquiry

was vitiated and impugned order caused to be issued. As a matter of fact, during the workman's inspection of

working phase of 52 No. Dip slice of 42 % LN of 3 Dip, workman found that the phase was properly supported and

he even instructed the Mining Sardar to lift the pole in bottom upto stone floor and to erect new supports on the hard

floor. When the workman visited the place of 47 ½ LN, 3 Dip after the blasting, dressing of sides was done. As a

matter of fact, despite precautions taken by the workman, the blast occurred on account of sudden bumping. As

submitted supra, MW-I and MW-2 are not eyewitnesses, therefore simply because MW-1 and MW-2 reiterated

workman's guilt, does not mean that, he is am guilty of charges. A bare perusal of evidence of MW-3 to MW-5 read

with workman's deposition categorically establish that, the unfortunate death of Kiran was not occurred either on the

part of the workman nor on the part of his subordinates. It was a sudden bumping, as a result of which, side fall

occurred. As a matter of fact there were no over hangs near the spot of accident. Even the overhangs which were

existing on the south side were supported by stay props. The contention of the enquiry officer that the one of the

reasons for accident was width of the slice was 4.9 meters instead of 3.6 meters, is concerned, 4.9 meters of width of

the slice was existing for more than 9 shifts in depillaring section and it was there for 18 meters progressed phase.

Not only the workman, but all the higher officials including MW-1 and MW-2 had been visiting along with regular

Colliery Manager and none of them have raised any objection at any point of time. Be that as it may, the workman is

only an Overman and he is not competent to decide the width of the slice. It is only the Colliery Manager or the

MW-l or MW-2 or any other officers above their rank, who can take a decision, but not the workman. On that

pretext, the workman cannot be held responsible for the accident occurred on account of sudden bumping. The further

contention of the enquiry officer that, the over hang on the south side of the phase was not supported for 2.5 meters

distance from the phase has nothing to do with the accident occurred, as the accident occurred at a far distant place,

but not at the place where the alleged over hang was existing on the south side. In so far as the contention of the

enquiry officer that "misfire shot was there at the north side of the phase, which was not relieved before allowing the

coal fillers for lifting the coal‖ is not supported by any valid evidence on record. None of the eyewitnesses deposed

in this regard, except the MW-1 and MW-2, who are not eyewitnesses. The evidence of MW-3 to MW-5 clearly

establish that, the sides were properly dressed and even the overhangs were properly supported by stay props. The

workman in his defence categorically deposed all these issues, however ignoring the deposition of the workman and

exclusively relying upon the MW-1 and MW-2, the EO submitted his report. It is submitted that, in reply to the

show cause notice dt.4-8-2005, the workman has submitted a detailed representation dt.8-8-2005. The workman

prayed to treat the contents of his explanation dt.8-8-2005 as part and parcel of this claim statement for proper

appreciation of the facts, as the workman is avoiding to repeat the same for brevity. Unfortunately, while issuing the

impugned office order dt.14-9-2005 none of his submissions were considered and no reasons were furnished as to

why the explanation submitted by the workman dt.8-8-2005 was not found appealing. On this ground alone office

order dated14-9-2005 is liable to be set-a-side and It is no more a res integra that, the statements obtained during the

course of preliminary enquiry would become redundant, once a decision is taken to hold the regular departmental

enquiry. The purpose of preliminary enquiry is to form an opinion whether to conduct regular departmental enquiry or

not. Once such a decision is taken and regular enquiry officer is appointed it is incumbent on the part of the regular

enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and come to a conclusion exclusively basing on the evidence adduced during the

course of regular enquiry, but not statements obtained during the course of preliminary enquiry. However, contrarily,

the regular departmental enquiry officer relied upon the statements obtained during the course of preliminary enquiry

to arrive at a conclusion the workman is guilty of charges. Basing on such perverse findings office order dated

14.9.2005 was issued. It is submitted that the violations alleged against the workman are general in nature, there is no

specific and categorical misconduct alleged against the workman. Even otherwise also, workman being a overman

has to look after various districts under his control, not only one specific district. In the instant case, the workman has

to look after 56 level to 36 level and each district will be manned by one mining sardar. Apart from this inspection of

pumps, old working stations, haulage and traveling road way etc. are to be looked after by workman. Therefore,

simply because an accident occurred, workman cannot be made as scapegoat without pin pointing or proving the

actual misconduct committed by him. The whole enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a

predetermined intention to put the petitioner to extreme hardship of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary

Authority failed to apply his mind independently while issuing the impugned office order of dismissal dt.7-8-2005, as

he did not delve into the alleged misconduct and the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner. Before

commencement of enquiry, the procedure of enquiry was not explained to the petitioner and he was not offered the

assistance of any defense assistance. As the petitioner was not aware of procedure of enquiry, he could not participate

the enquiry effectively, resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal. The enquiry officer relied upon the

evidence of irrelevant witnesses, who have no personal knowledge of the charge alleged against the petitioner.

Though, enquiry officer relied upon several documents to substantiate the charges, none of those documents were

either shown or furnished to the petitioner, either before or during the course of enquiry. Even otherwise also, even

the considered documents do not establish the charge alleged against the petitioner. Neither the findings of the

Enquiry Officer, nor the impugned order gives any reasons, much less valid in nature. Enquiry Officer grossly erred

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

555

in holding the charges as proved, ignoring the submissions of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary

Authority proceeded with a preconceived notion, as if, the petitioner accepted the charges alleged against, which is

factually incorrect. Neither the Enquiry Officer, nor the Disciplinary Authority considered the submissions made by

the petitioner before arriving at a conclusion. Neither the proceedings of enquiry were conducted in the language

presently known to the petitioner, nor the same were explained in the language known to the petitioner. In fact, as per

the instructions issued by the 1^st respondent company, the proceedings of enquiry are to be conducted in the language

known to the delinquent employee. It is further submitted that he is no way responsible for the accident occurred on

24-8-2004 in first shift/Relay-B, whereat one workman succumbed to the injuries. Though the workman has been

working in the company from 1982 onwards, so far, except the charge sheet dt.9-ll-2004 workman has not been

alleged to have committed any misconduct. In view of the above facts and circumstances increments deferred vide

proceeding No.CRPPER/IRID/99/7123 dated14-9-2005 issued by the Director (PA & W) are liable to be restored to

the Petitioner with all consequential benefits. Therefore, it is prayed to declare the proceeding No. CRP/PER/

IR/D/99/7123 dated14-9-2005 issued by the Director (PA & W) as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same.

Consequently direct the Respondent to restore the increments deferred vide office order No.CRP/PERIR/D/99/7123

dt.14-9-2005 issued by the Director (PA & W), duly granting all other consequential benefits.

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

It is submitted that Mr. Jagiri Rajanna was imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative

effect on proved charges after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice.

It is submitted that respondent be permitted to produce the evidence in case it is held that the domestic enquiry is not

valid. It is submitted that the workman was initially appointed in the Company on 08-08-1982 in the respondent

company as Badli filler and subsequently promoted as Overman after passing statutory examination and presently

working as Head Overman at GDK.No. 8 Incline. It is to submit that on 24-08-2004 in 1^st Shift in Relay - "B", the

workman was engaged as District Overman at GDK 6A Incline for 4S/SS-20 District. Being a District Overman, he is

fully in-charge of the said District under statute in respect of Safety of the persons working in the District and also to

supervise the works related for safety and progress of the works. Further, it is the prime duty of' the District

Overman to ensure the safety in the District and sale workings of the workmen working under his control as per 43

(1) (e) of CMR 1957. On 24-08-2004 in I shift Sri Toka Kiran, Badli filler working at 52 No. dip slice, 47 ½ LN/3D

was involved in a Fatal Accident due to inflicting injuries on his head occurred due to side fall. As the workman had

failed to provide safe working to Sri Toka Kiran, Badli filler, he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No.

RGI/GDK/6A/R.06/3940 Dated 07/09-11-2004 for violation of Company's Standing Order Nos. No. 25.3, 25.5, 25.16

and 25.28 which reads as follows:-

"25.3 Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in conjunction with another or others of any

lawful or reasonable order of superior.

25.5 - Neglect of work.

25. 16 -Any breach of the Mines Act 1952 or any other act or any rules or regulations or bye laws there under.

25.28- Conduct within the mine's premises or its precincts which endangers life or safety of any person."

The workman has submitted his explanation dated 16-11-2004. As the explanation submitted by the Workman was

found not satisfactory, a Departmental Enquiry was ordered which was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in which the

workman had fully participated and fair opportunity was given to him to defend his case and the charges were proved

against him beyond doubt. As such, a show cause notice vide Lr.No. RG-I/PER/S/46/3956 Dated 4-8-2005 enclosing

therewith a copy of the Enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Report were served to the workman Sri J.Rajanna giving

him an opportunity to submit his representation, if any, on the Enquiry Report and accordingly the workman has

submitted reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 08-08-2005. It is submitted that that after considering all the

facts of the case and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority had concurred with the findings of

the Enquiry officer and imposed the penalty of 'Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect' as punishment for

the misconduct of Sri J.Rajanna vide Order No. CRP/PER/IR/D/99/7213, dated 14-09-2005. It is denied that without

any application of mind, the Respondent initiated enquiry, without even considering the submissions made by the

workman vide his reply dated 16-11-2004. It is submitted that it is a fact that during the course of the enquiry, five

(5) witnesses on behalf of the Management were examined and recorded their statements. It is the prime duty of the

workman as a Overman and incharge of the District and being a competent person under the Mines Act and Coal

Mines Regulations 1957 to ensure sale working of the Machine and Men working in the District under his control

from time to time as per the statute. The workman clearly admitted in Para - 5 that M.W1 is the Safety Officer who

stated to have conducted the preliminary enquiry, M.W 2 is the Senior Under Manager of the Mine and either of them

are the eye witnesses to the incident it is denied that the evidence of M.W.- 3 to 5 clearly goes to show that the

workman is no way responsible for the accident occurred and he has taken all possible preventive measures, which are

to be taken as per Coal Mines Regulations. It is also denied that the manner and method in which the Enquiry Officer

submitted his report shows that he was prejudged the issue. It is submitted that it is the duty and responsibility of the

workman that the roof and the sides apart from the roadways in the District are properly checked, dressed and secured

556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to avoid fall of objects / roof / sides / slippery before allowing persons to work in the District. But the workman had

failed to do so which the circumstantial evidences have proved and resulted in occurrence of a fatal accident to Sri

Toka Kiran. The workman has not taken care, so as to secure the safety of men under his control and there was a clear

lapse on his part. It is false to allege that as a result of wrong approach of the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was

vitiated and impugned order caused to be issued. It is to submit that mere inspection of the working place of 52 No.

Dip Slice. 47 ½ LN/3D and erection of supports and dressing of the roof and sides is not enough to allow the persons

to work unless and until they are carefully secured / dressed / supported from time to time for safe working. It is

denied that the overhangs which were existing on the south side were supported by stay props as per S.S.R under

regulation 108 of CMR 1957. It is submitted that it is a fact that misfire shot was there on the north side of the face

which was not noticed before allowing the coal fillers for lifting the coal. The Workman has failed to report to the

higher authorities if the width of the slice is more than specified, and also failed to ensure that "misfire shots" are left

out in the face, fortunately nothing happened with the misfire. The circumstantial evidences and as per the findings of

the Enquiry Officer the accident took place due to side fall because of overhang on the south side of the face which

was not supported as precautionary measure for safety and thus caused for the occurrence of the Fatal Accident to Sri

T.Kiran due to improper supporting and supervision. It is further submitted that it is a fact that the workman has

submitted a representation dated 08-08-2008 to the show cause notice and the same has been found unsatisfactory by

the Disciplinary Authority. Though the misconduct of the workman warrants a severe punishment, a lenient view has

been taken and awarded the punishment of 'Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect' considering his

representation. The allegations of the workman that while issuing the impugned order dated 14-09-2005 none of his

submissions were considered and no reasons were furnished as to why the explanations submitted by the workman

dated 08-02-2005 was not found appealing are denied. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has considered

the explanation given by the workman and passed the detailed order. It is submitted that Departmental Enquiry was

conducted into the charges levelled against the workman vide charge sheet No. RG-/GDK6AR.06/3940 Dated 07/09-

11-2004 by following procedures and principles of domestic enquiry and natural justice. The preliminary enquiry

report/statements however will be adding evidence to the statements of the Management witnesses. Hence the

domestic enquiry was conducted fairly based on the facts as per laid down procedure. It is submitted that the

workman being a District Overman, he is "in charge" of the 4S/SS-20 District and his responsibilities under CMR

1957 as under:

Regd. No. 43 (1) - He shall be responsible to see that the Subordinate Officials and competent persons in his district

carry out their respective duties in a proper manner.

Reg.No. 43(1) (e) - He shall, to the best of his power enforced in his district the provisions of the Act, of these

regulations and orders made there under, and shall, subject to the control of the Manager and the Under Manager or

Assistant Manager, if any, give such directions as may be necessary to ensure compliance with those provisions and

to secure the safety to the district and the safety and proper discipline of the persons employed therein.

Reg. No. 43(8) (a) - He shall devote the whole of his time to his duties and visit each working place in his district as

often as may be necessary or possible.

Reg.No. 190 -General Safety :- No person shall negligently or willfully do anything likely to endanger life or limb in

the mine, or negligently or willfully omit to do anything necessary for the safety of the mine or of the persons

employed therein.

Cir.tech.9/1985 - It is hereby clarified that making the roof and sides safe is the responsibility of officials superior to

shot-firer i.e. Sirdar, Overman, Asst.Manager and not of the Shot Firer. After the atmosphere in the area is free from

dust, smoke or fumes, the shot firer shall inspect the place for misfire, sockets or remnants or explosives. If the area is

found safe with respect of atmosphere conditions and presence of sockets etc. his superior officials shall take further

action for getting the roof and sides dressed and supported.

The Workman has failed to comply the above regulations and violated causing for occurrence of a Fatal Accident to

Mr. Toka Kiran. It is not correct to allege that simply because an accident occurred, the workman cannot be made

scapegoat without pin pointing or proving the actual misconduct committed by him. It is submitted that the workman

being statutory person and incharge of the District it is his duty to see that safety conditions are prevailing for the

workmen working under his control. It is submitted that the Departmental Enquiry/Domestic enquiry was conducted

by following the laid down procedure and principles of natural justice. The allegations of the workman that the whole

enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a predetermined intention to some how or the other,

put the workman to extreme hardship of dismissal from service is denied. It is submitted that in the beginning of the

enquiry, procedure and enquiry has been explained to the workman and asked the workman whether he prefers to

have any defense assistant during the enquiry for which he said that he has selected Sri E.Siddi Raju, Head Overman,

GDK 6A Incline as his defense assistant and accordingly Sri E.Siddi Raju was allowed as defense assistant in the

enquiry. Enquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence of the relevant witnesses and given his finding and it is up to

the Enquiry officer to consider, which is relevant statement / document| evidence and however the workman was

given fair opportunity to defend himself and to cross examine the Management witnesses at every stage. It is to

submit that the Enquiry Officer after considering all the statements of the participants and evidences therein, held the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

557

workman as guilty of the charges levelled against him vide Charge sheet No. RG-I/GDK 6A/R.06/3940 Dated 07/09-

11-2004. It is denied that neither the findings of the Enquiry Officer nor the impugned order gives any reason, much

less valid in nature. Further, the Enquiry proceedings were conducted in English with the consent of the workman

only. It is submitted that being in-charge of the District, the workman is solely responsible for the occurrence of the

fatal accident that took place due to improper inspection of the working place and supervision for safe workings of the

persons. It is to submit that in view of the above facts and circumstances, awarding the punishment of 'stoppage of

two increments with cumulative effect' to the workman is justified. It is submitted that in accordance with Clause - 29

of Standing Orders, a workman on whom any penalty imposed shall have the right to appeal to the Appellant

Authority within 45 days of receipt of the order of punishment. The workman though he has received the punishment

order on l6-09-2005 did not prefer any appeal against the Order and as such it is clear that he did not have any

grievance on the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties as well as perused written arguments.

From the perusal of the rival pleadings and submissions made by both the parties, following points

emerge for determination in the present matter:-

Whether the Departmental Enquiry held against the Petitioner is legal and valid?

II.

Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., in imposing the

punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order No.CRP/PER/IR/ D/99/7213

dated 14.9.2005 in respect of Sri Jagiri Rajanna is legal and justified?

III.

Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner in the present matter of stoppage of two increments

with cumulative effect is disproportionate and not commensurate to the charge levelled against him?

IV.

To what relief Petitioner is entitled for?

FINDINGS:-

Point No.I:- This point has been decided vide order dated 28.1.2011 holding the domestic enquiry legal and

valid.

Thus, Point is answered accordingly.

Point No.II & III:-

Admittedly, Petitioner workman was initially appointed on 8.8.1992 as Badli

Filler and later on he was promoted as Overman in the year 1998. At the time of incident he was working as a

Overman and he was incharge of the District of the place where the fatal accident occurred on 24.8.2004. first and

fore most argument advanced by the Petitioner is that before commencement of the enquiry, the procedure of the

enquiry was not explained to the Petitioner and he was not offered the assistance of any defence assistant. As the

Petitioner was not aware of the procedure of the enquiry he could not participate in the enquiry effectively resulting in

issuance of the impugned order of punishment.

On the other hand, Respondent contended that the fair opportunity of hearing and cross examination of the

witnesses as well as producing the defence evidence was accorded to the Petitioner during the enquiry. The

workman had fully participated in the enquiry proceeding. Further it is submitted that show cause notice was also

issued enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry proceeding and enquiry report was served to the workman to

provide him an opportunity to submit his representation. Perused the record. The workman was provided fair

opportunity of hearing during the enquiry. The plea of the Petitioner in view of the record of Departmental enquiry

is not tenable. Further more, said pleas of the Petitioner have already been considered and answered in the order

dated 24.1.2011 passed in the context of validity of domestic enquiry and Departmental enquiry has been held legal

and valid. Further the Counsel for the Petitioner argued that during the course of enquiry Management examined

five witnesses and MW1 stated to have conducted the preliminary enquiry and MW2 is the Senior under mW5,

MW1 is the Safety Officer, but either of them are not eye witness to the incident. Therefore, their evidence can not

be taken into consideration to prove the guilt on the part of the workman. Further, ignoring the evidence of eye

witnesses i.e., MW3 to MW5, the Enquiry Officer gave more importance and weight to the evidence of MW1 and

MW2 and wholly relying the evidence of MW1 and MW2, the Enquiry Officer prepared his report. The manner

and method in which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report shows that he was predetermined and prejudged the

issue.

Perused the record of enquiry proceeding as well as enquiry report. During the enquiry proceeding

Management has examined five witnesses MW1-Sri K. Venkateswarlu, Dy. Manager working at GDK.6A Incline,

who has produced the documentary evidence, enquiry report of Safety Officer regarding incident and its finding, as

well as the documents pertaining to the proceedings of enquiry. Proceedings of Departmental enquiry reveals that

the delinquent workman has been accorded the opportunity of cross examination from Management witnesses and

fair opportunity of hearing has been provided to delinquent worker. Further witness Sri Sushant Saha, Safety Officer,

GDK.6A incline has been examined as Management witness –MW1. In his chief affidavit, he has narrated about the

incident and also about conducting the enquiry of said incident. The cross examination opportunity was accorded to

558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman Petitioner. MW1 has been cross examined at length, but nothing has been elicited in his cross

examination to discredit the testimony of MW2. Thus, the other witness Sri S. Kathireshan, Sr. Under Manager has

been examined as MW2. In the chief affidavit MW2 has categorically stated in his testimony that on the day of

incident i.e., 24.8.2004, he came for duty in the first shift, he has planned for deployment of the Man power with the

Overman and after the work distribution he had gone down the mine. He had gone to SS-20 of 4 seam for

inspection. MW2 reached the working place of 52 No. Dip slice of 47 ½ LN of 3 Dip. In his inspection of the face

he had observed that there was no corner prop as out of 4 corner props only 3 were there. When he reached the place,

Overman Sri J. Rajanna and District Sirdar Sri Guda Kanakaiah were there. Further, witness stated that he has

instructed overman and the Sirdar to arrange and to erect the corner prop. The witness further testified that he had

observed overhang in the South side of the face and two stay props were fixed to support the Overhang. He has

asked the Overman and Sirdar as to why that Overhang was not dropped down in dressing. The Overman and

Sirdar told that they tried to drop down the Overhang in dressing, but it could not be dropped down and so stay props

were fixed. Further, witness had testified that The coal fillers were lifting the loose coal in the face. Witness stated

that he had instructed the Overman and the Sirdar to remove the Overhang in south side at least after blasting. Further

this witness states that he came to working place of 47 ½ LN of 1 dip along with Overman Sri Rajanna and inspected

the face. Where he found that some support were missing, on enquiry Sri Rajanna told that there was no supports

from the face upto 3 mts. In the inspection of the face at 47 ½ LN of 3 D MW1observed that the Overhang was

continued upto the fact which was supported with 2 stay props. The Overman and the Sirdar told to witness that

they tried to drop down the Overhang but they could not do it and so, it was supported with stay props. From the

statement of the witness Sri S. Kathireshan, Sr. Under Manager it goes to reveal that he had already instructed Sri J.

Rajanna, Overman and Sirdar to take proper safety measures at the place of incident, but Overman Sri J. Rajanna did

not follow the instruction of his superior regarding safety measures. Thus, from the above statement of MW and

MW2 the charge of negligence and dereliction in discharge of duty by charge sheeted Overman is fully corroborated.

Furthermore, witnesses MW3 to MW5 have been examined, stated that on the day of fatal accident these witnesses

were on duty at the work place and the accident took place due to filling of the coal pieces on the workman Sri Toka

Kiran, who go injured. The witness has also testified with the Overman and Sirdar who were present at the work

place and there was also water in the face after blasting and these witnesses had categorically stated that where the

workman met fatal accident. These witnesses have also supported the charge sheet version issued against Petitioner.

Although all these witnesses have been cross examined by the delinquent workman but nothing has been elicited to

discredit or disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses.

10.

Further, plea of the Petitioner is that Sri Sushant Saha, MW2 who has conducted the preliminary enquiry in

the present accident matter and submitted a report to the Management and based on his report the Departmental

enquiry was ordered against the Petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances the evidence of witness Sri Sushant

Saha is not relevant against the workman in the enquiry.

11.

Perused the record. Although MW2 Sri Sushanth Saha has conducted enquiry into the incident in which the

workman Sri Thoka Kiran, met with the fatal injuries and on the basis of his report, the enquiry was ordered against

Petitioner workman. But after initiation of Departmental enquiry the delinquent workman has been accorded fair

opportunity of hearing and cross examination of witnesses and also to produce defence evidence. Since MW2 Sri

Sushant Saha was posted as Safety Officer in the Company and he is having knowledge of safety measures to be

implemented and/ observed by the workman at the work place i.e., Mine of the Company. Therefore, it was his duty

to find out the cause of such accident at the work place and also to find out the lapses and negligence committed by

workman on duty and to submit the report to this effect. Thus, misconduct of the charge sheeted workman has been

proved by the evidence of this witness. Further, the opportunity to cross examine the witness Sri Sushant Saha was

accorded to the delinquent workman which he availed. Nothing has been elicited in his cross examination to discredit

the testimony of this witness. Therefore, the evidence of Sri Sushanth Saha, is relevant and admissible in evidence

as per law. The plea of the Petitioner in this context is not tenable.

12.

Further, the perusal of the record goes to reveal that on 24.8.2004, in first shift where the Petitioner was

posted as Overman and he was also incharge of that district, Sri Toka Kiran, at 52 No. Dip slice of 47 ½ LN of 3 Dip.

met with fatal accident, due to fall of side at that working place while he was doing his work and he suffered head

injury and succumb, to that injury later on. As the Petitioner workman had failed to observed and implement safety

measures at the working place as per rules and regulations of the Company, even after the inspection and instructions

made by his superior. Since he did not ensure to observe and implement safety measures at work place and due to

his negligence, one workman died in accident. Therefore, Petitioner Overman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet

dated 07/09-11-2004 for violation of Company‘s Standing Orders No.25.3, 25.5, 25.16 and 25.28 which reads as

follows:-

"25.3 Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in conjunction with another or others of any lawful

or reasonable order of superior.

25.5 - Neglect of work.

25. 16 -Any breach of the Mines Act 1952 or any other act or any rules or regulations or bye laws there under.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

559

25.28- Conduct within the mine's premises or its precincts which endangers life or safety of any person."

Further, since Petitioner workman was posted as Overman and he was District incharge of the 4S/SS-20 District, his

duties and responsibilities under CMR 1957 reads as under:

Regd. No. 43 (1) - He shall be responsible to see that the Subordinate Officials and competent persons in his district

carry out their respective duties in a proper manner.

Reg.No. 43(1) (e) - He shall, to the best of his power enforced in his district the provisions of the Act, of these

regulations and orders made there under, and shall, subject to the control of the Manager and the Under Manager or

Assistant Manager, if any, give such directions as may be necessary to ensure compliance with those provisions and

to secure the safety to the district and the safety and proper discipline of the persons employed therein.

Reg. No. 43(8) (a) - He shall devote the whole of his time to his duties and visit each working place in his district as

often as may be necessary or possible.

Reg.No. 190 -General Safety :- No person shall negligently or willfully do anything likely to endanger life or limb in

the mine, or negligently or willfully omit to do anything necessary for the safety of the mine or of the persons

employed therein.

Cir.tech.9/1985 - It is hereby clarified that making the roof and sides safe is the responsibility of officials superior to

shot-firer i.e. Sirdar, Overman, Asst.Manager and not of the Shot Firer. After the atmosphere in the area is free from

dust, smoke or fumes, the shot firer shall inspect the place for misfire, sockets or remnants or explosives. If the area is

found safe with respect of atmosphere conditions and presence of sockets etc. his superior officials shall take further

action for getting the roof and sides dressed and supported.

But the delinquent workman (Petitioner) failed to observe his responsibility in discharge of his duty of the day when

fatal accident took place. Therefore, from the fore gone discussion I arrived at conclusion that during the enquiry the

Management has examined witnesses MW1 to MW5 and these witnesses have proved the charge of negligence

against the workman / Petitioner who was posted as Overman of the district at the time of incident. Further, in

enquiry delinquent workman has examined himself in defence and in his cross examination the delinquent Overman

(Petitioner) has admitted the fact that there was Overhang and he instructed the Mining Sirdar to support the prop at

47 ½ LBN of 3 Dip working face as the erection of supports and dressing of the roof and sides is not enough and to

allow the persons to is not safe work unless and until they are careful from time to time. Further, the Petitioner

workman states in his cross examination:-

“A(3): Yes, the accident took place in between the supported area. What I mean to say that the accident

took place in between props, but the side in between the props parted and fell down.

A(15):Yes. There is chance of falling of side by sudden bumping.”

Further, in his cross examination in reply to question by MR, the Petitioner workman replied,

“A(4): The District Sirdar, Overman and the Under Manager are responsible for securing the roof and

sides and giving permission to lift the coal in working place and so also under regulation 115(e) of Coal

Mines Regulation, 1957 the persons(s) who are working in the face has to carefully examine his

working place before commencing the work and also at intervals during the shift. If any dangerous

situation is observed he shall cease all work at that place and shall either immediate steps to remove

such danger or inform an official or the competent person incharge of the Mine or district.”

Thus, from the above statement of the delinquent employee during the enquiry, also it is crystal clear that Petitioner

failed to observe the safety measures at working place despite having knowledge of danger of overhand at work

place.

13.

The delinquent Overman did not make ensure even after instruction of superiors that the Overhang at work

place has been removed by Sirdar after his instruction. Thus, due to negligence of Petitioner not ensuring

compliance of instruction regarding safety measure at work place the fatal accident occurred. As being incharge of

that accident place/face, he was duty bound to take all the safety measures as per CMR 1957, which enumerates the

responsibilities of employees of the Company at the work place. But, his conduct found negligent in observing

CMR 1957 rules, and due to his negligent conduct fatal incident occurred at the work place where Sri Toka Kiran,

died. On the other hand, Petitioner has literally failed to establish his averment of claim statement in his defence

evidence. In his claim statement he has alleged lapses and the negligence of higher authority and also colleague

workman, but, by alleging the other person he can not escape his responsibility in discharging his duty and due to

his negligent conduct the fatal accident took place and he must owe the responsibility of mis-happening at work

place.

560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

Further more, once it is held that domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the next question arises for

consideration is, as to whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner in the present matter is just and legal or it is

disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. All the charges during the enquiry has been held proved against

Petitioner. One Badli Filler has lost his life in the incident while he was doing his work and due to conduct of

dereliction and negligence Petitioner in discharge of his duty. Therefore, it can not be said that charges were simple

in nature.

15.

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion, I am of the considered view that all the charges being serious in

nature, and Disciplinary Authority has taken lenient view while imposing punishment in the present matter.

Therefore, the order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect passed by Disciplinary Authority against

the Petitioner can not be said in any manner disproportionate to the charges levelled against Petitioner. Disciplinary

Authority has already taken lenient view in the matter, of punishment and imposed punishment of stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect. In other words, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative

effect is proportionate to the gravity of the charges and hence, deserves to be upheld.

Thus, Points No.II & III are decided accordingly.

16.

Point No. IV:

In view of fore gone discussion and conclusion arrived at Points No.I, II & III, the

Petitioner‘s claim is liable to be dismissed. As such, he is not entitled to any relief.

Thus, Point No.IV is decided accordingly.

AWARD

The action of the management M/s SCCL in imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with

cumulative effect vide order No.CRP/PER/IR/D/99/7213 dated 14.9.2005 in respect of Sri Jagiri Rajanna is held

legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and claim petition stands dismissed.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the

14^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] 5 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] जबलृुर ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/67/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (lh,e-II)]

ef.kdanu- ,u] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2024

S.O. 255.—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.91/2016) 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-22012/67/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

561

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/2016

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 16^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-22012/67/2016(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 Quarter retention ground such as leave

enchantments and other dues as eligible in respect of Shri Uma Shankar Pandey, Ex-

Accountant, 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 that the workman Uma Shankar Pandey from the services of

management after attaining the age of superannuation but the management has not paid his retiral 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

28/02/2014. 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.

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, 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.

562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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, the reference is answered against the workman.

P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

]असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y- 22012/106/2022-vkbZ- vkj- (lh,e-II)]

ef.kdanu- ,u] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2024

S.O. 256.—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.03/2023) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/106/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 03 OF 2023

PARTIES: Barun Kumar Mondal

Vs.

Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 and 2 Incline of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Mahendra Singh, Adv. and Mr. Bipul Banerjee, Adv.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

04.12.2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

563

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-22012/106/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 19.12.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 and 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area,

M/s. E.C.Ltd. in not fixation the pay properly in the regularized post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer to Shri Barun

Kumar Mondal is fair, legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/106/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 19.12.2022 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 03 of 2023 was registered on

05.01.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Jhanjra Project colliery, of Eastern Coalfields

Limited is present. For ends of justice, the case is fixed up today for evidence of workman witness. On repeated calls

at 12.50 pm none appeared for Barun Kumar Mondal. Mr. Bipul Banerjee and Mr. Mahendra Singh, advocates who

filed Vokalatnama in this case are found absent.

It appears that on earlier occasions opportunities were given to the workman on two consecutive dates for

adducing evidence but they failed to take steps. In my considered view workman is disinclined to proceed further in

respect of his claim for regularization to the post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer. The Industrial Dispute referred is

accordingly dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in this Industrial Dispute. 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] 8 Qjojh] 2024

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

प्रिासन .कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन हेडक् वाटडर, सजन्य क्षेत्र, ृरटयाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बजाज ेकेदार जनवासी एल.अइ.जी .175, ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट,

फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सीमा देवी, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (161/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-80]

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.161/2016) 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 Seema Devi.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-80]

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.161/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Seema Devi W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar R/o H.No.111-CA, Near Power House Colony Central Patiala,

C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-12.12.2023

The workman Smt. Seema Devi 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 full back

wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by

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] 8 Qjojh] 2024

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

प्रिासन .कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन हेड क्वाटडर, सजन्य क्षेत्र, ृरटयाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बजाज ेकेदार जनवासी एल.अइ.जी .175, ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट,

फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj इश्वर ंसह ,कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (162/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-81]

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.162/2016) 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 Ishwer Singh.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-81]

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.162/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Ishwer Singh S/o Sh. Bant Singh R/o H.No.111, Seona Distt. Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar,

Resident-cum-Office Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

565

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:-12.12.2023

1. The workman Sh. Ishwer 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 full back

wages.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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.

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] 8 Qjojh] 2024

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

फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj जनिु ,कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (163/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-82]

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.163/2016) 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 Nishu.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-82]

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.163/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Nishu D/o Rajinder Kumar R/o Dhiru Nagar, Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office Street

No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-12.12.2023

The workman Ms. Nishu 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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] 8 Qjojh] 2024

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

फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj गोंबद ंसह ,कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (164/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-83]

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.164/2016) 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 Gobind Singh.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-83]

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.164/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Gobind Singh S/o Sh. Malkit Singh R/o Dhiru Nagar, Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar, Resident-

cum-Office Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

567

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:-12.12.2023

The workman Sh. Gobind 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 full back

wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by

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] 8 Qjojh] 2024

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

फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj जीतू कुमार ,कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (165/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-84]

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.165/2016) 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 Jeetu Kumar.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-84]

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.165/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Jeetu Kumar S/o Sh. Des Mahato R/o H.No.620, Bahera Road, Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar,

Resident-cum-Office Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:-12.12.2023

The workman Sh. Jeetu 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 full back

wages.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by

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.

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] 8 Qjojh] 2024

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

प्रिासन .कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन हेड क्वाटडर, सजन्य क्षेत्र, ृरटयाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बजाज ेकेदार जनवासी एल.अइ.जी .175, ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट,

फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj संजय ंसह, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (166/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-85]

सलोनी] ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.166/2016) 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 Sanjay Singh.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-85]

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.166/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Sanjay Singh S/o Sh. Gurjant Singh R/o Village. Nain Kalan Distt. Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh &

Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala (Punjab).

...........Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

569

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:-12.12.2023

The workman Sh. Sanjay 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 full back

wages.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by

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.

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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 263.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

ओएनजीसी जलजमटेड; मेससड सनराआज टाआृराआटटग क्लास & एक्सृटड सर्मवसेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और

वड़ोदरा जजल्ला जनरल कामदार यूजनयन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, ऄहमदाबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-708/2004) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-30012/1/2000- अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 708/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to ONGC Ltd.; M/s Sunrise Typewriting class & Expert Services and Vadodara Jilla

General Kamdar Union, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

08.02.2024.

[No. L-30012/1/2000-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Sunil Kumar Singh-I,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad.

Dated 12^th December, 2023

570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No- 708/2004

1. The Regional Director,

ONGC Ltd., WRBC., Makarpura Road,

BARODA.

2. M/s. Sunrise Typewriting class & Expert Services,

C-37, Bhagyalaxmi Society,

Ajwa Road,

BARODA – 390019.

…...…….First Party

Vadodara Jilla General Kamdar Union,

The General Secretary,

Salatwada, Vanikar-ni-Pagha,

Vinodbhave Road,

BARODA – 390001.

………….Second Party

Advocate for the First Party employer : Shri P. F. Zaveri

Advocate for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/1/2000-

IR(M) dated 19.05.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

SCHEDULE

―Whether Vadodara Jilla General Kamdar Union, Baroda has locus-standi to raise the dispute under section 2(k)

of I. D. Act, 1947 in respect of contractual workmen in ONGC Ltd, Baroda?‘

―Whether Ms. Vijaya S. Ahire is a workman under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947 ? If so

whether the demand of the union for reinstatement in service and regularisation of the services of Ms. VIjaya S.

Ahire is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary in the matter?‖

1. The case was called out. First Party/employer is represented through Ld. Counsel Shri P. F. Zaveri. None

responds for Second Party/workman. Perusal of record shows that the case is fixed for arguments. However

it transpires from the perusal of record that the SP/workman has been absenting since 27.03.2017 except on

one occasion i.e. on 25.04.2019. The second party/workman was afforded last opportunity on 27.12.2022

along with additional opportunities on 10.04.2023 and 07.08.2023. It appears that the SP/workman has either

settled his dispute with the FP/employer out of court or is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

Thus, in the circumstances, the claim of the workman is declined and the reference is answered in positive in

favour of the FP/employer and against the SP/workman. The award is passed accordingly.

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

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 264.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

यूनाआटेड आंजडया आन्सुरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री राजेिभाइ दनभाइ डांगर के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ऄहमदाबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-04/2009)

को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को

प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-17012/1/2009-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

571

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to United India Insuramce Co. Ltd. and Shri Rajeshbhai Danabhai Dangar which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/1/2009-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present - Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer,

Dated 14^th December, 2023

Reference (CGITA) No.: 04/2009

The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

‗Toral‘ Jawahar Road, Opp. State Bank of Saurashtra,

Rajkot

….…….First Party / Employer

Shri Rajeshbhai Danabhai Dangar,

Raiya Road, Near Hanuman Madhi,

Alkapuri, Opp. Street No. 2, Momai Om Chamunda,

Rajkot

..….…Second Party / Workman

Advocate for the First Party / Employer:

Shri Sharad C. Vakharia

Advocate or the Second Party / Workman: Shri Chetan R. Vyas

AWARD

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

17012/1/2009 - IR(M) dated 26.06.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule as under.

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad / Rajkot in

not providing employment to Shri Rajeshbhai D. Dangar, Ex-Sweeper-cum-Peon after 01/06/2006 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖

1. The second party / workman submitted the statement of claim at Ex. 6, stating that, he was working in

continuity with the first party / employer as permanent workman / peon-cum-sweeper, on the transfer of

some permanent / regular employee Shri Chetan P. Khetani, @ 10 hours / day since August, 2000 against the

vacant post till he was orally terminated w.e.f. 01.06.2006 without any notice / notice pay / retrenchment

compensation. His service record was clean and blotless. He had performed his duties honestly and

diligently. He has worked for 240 days in each calendar year. No departmental enquiry was conducted by the

first party. Juniors / new persons were appointed by the first party for the same work after his termination.

The first party has violated the provisions of Section 25 (F), 25 (G) & 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. Prayed to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages along with all consequential

benefits.

572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The first party / employer has submitted written statement at Ex. 9, stating that the second party / workman

was engaged as casual labour / rozmadar from the year 2002 onwards and abandoned the work voluntarily

in June, 2006. He was engaged as and when required for work and was not in continuity of service. He has

never completed 240 days of service with the employer. He does not fall within the definition of ‗workman‘

as prescribed u/s 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. It is further stated

that he was not appointed through regular selection procedure. There was no violation in respect of any of

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Prayed to dismiss the claim of the second party / workman.

3. The second party / workman has filed documentary evidence detailed as under.

Sl.

No.

Name / Details of the document

Date of

Document

Seriatim of

Document

Type / Remarks

Salary disbursement vouchers for the period from

July 2001 to May 2006 (59 vouchers).

Annexure

Ex. 10

Xerox

Salary disbursement vouchers for the period from

05.08.2002 to 18.04.2004 (85 vouchers).

Annexure

Ex. 10

Xerox

Application of Shri Rajeshbhai Danabhai Dangar

for the post of part-time sweeper, to Personnel

Department,

Regional

Office,

United

India

Insurance Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad.

01.02.2002

Ex. 20 / 1

Xerox

inter-departmental

letter

the

subject

‗Requirement of PTS for this office‘.

09.08.2002

Ex. 20 / 2

Xerox

A confidential inter-departmental letter on the

subject ‗Part-time Sweeper Vacancies‘.

29.10.2002

Ex. 20 / 3

Xerox

4. The second party / workman has deposed himself at Ex. 11 in oral evidence.

5. The first party / employer has not filed any documentary evidence, however, has deposed Shri Ravi Prakash

Kamra, an authorised officer of the employer / company, at Ex. 17 in oral evidence only.

6. Perused the records. Heard, Shri Chetan R. Vyas, advocate for the second party / workman in light of his

written arguments at Ex. 22 and Shri Sharad C. Vakharia, advocate for the first party / employer in light of

his written arguments at Ex. 21.

7. The main point for consideration under reference is as under:

―Whether the second party / workman Shri Rajeshbhai D. Dangar has worked for 240 days in the

calendar year preceding his oral termination dated 01.06.2006 and the first party / employer

engaged juniors / new persons by not giving preference to the second party / workman?‖

8. Ld. Counsel for the second party / workman has argued that the workman was working with the first party /

employer since August, 2000 against a permanent post as sweeper. The workman has completed much above

240 days in the year preceding his oral termination on 01.06.2006. He was terminated without any notice /

notice pay in violation of Section 25 (F). His juniors and new persons were engaged by the employer in

violation of the Section 25 (G) & 25 (H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Prayed to allow the claimed relief.

9. Ld. Counsel for the second party / workman has referred (1) Director, Fisheries Terminal Division V

Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, Civil Appeal No. 7463 of 2009, D.O.J. – 09.11.2009 (SC) (DB) – wherein,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Hon‘ble Gujarat High Court which affirmed the award

passed by Labour Court, directing the appellant employer to reinstate the respondent workman with 20 %

back wages, concluding that the workman has completed continuous service of 240 days by drawing an

adverse inference as the appellant employer did not produce any evidence to the fact that the workman has

not completed 240 days in the preceding year. (2) Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V A.

Sankaralingam, Civil Appeal No. 4445 of 2006, D.O.J. – 03.10.2008 (SC) (DB), wherein, Hon‘ble Supreme

Court has answered the question as to whether a part-time workman would be covered within the definition

in section 2 (s) of the Act and whether he would be entitled to the benefit of continuous service under section

25 (B) and the benefit of section 25 (F), in favour of respondent workman. (3) M/s Nicks (India) Tools V

Ram Surat & anr., Appeal (Civil) No. 4146 – 4147 of 2001, D.O.J. – 25.08.2004 (SC) (DB), wherein

Hon‘ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in respect of

reinstatement and the payment of full back wages to the workman. (4) M/s Scooters India Ltd. V M.

Mohammad Yaqub & anr., Appeal No. Nil, D.O.J. – 21.11.2000 (SC), wherein Hon‘ble Supreme Court held

that there cannot be any automatic termination of the workman on the basis of standing order 9.3.12.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

573

Principles of natural justice had to be complied with. (5) Mahamadsha Ganishah Patel & Anr. V Mastanbaug

Consumers‘ Co-op. Wholesale & Retail Stores, 1998 I CLR 1205 (Bom.), wherein Hon‘ble Bombay High

Court has held that even in case of abandonment of service, enquiry was necessary and in the absence of the

same, it is held that the employer failed to establish abandonment of service and as such there was

termination of service.

10. Ld. Counsel for the employer has argued in line with the written statement that the workman was casual

worker and is not entitled for reinstatement / back wages. He voluntarily abandoned the work in June, 2006.

The vouchers produced by the workman are related to his salary disbursement as casual worker and such

vouchers cannot infer that he was the employee of the first party. Prayed to dismiss the claim of second

party.

11. I have carefully gone through the pleadings and the written / oral arguments raised and evidence adduced by

both the parties. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the employer has stated in his written

statement at Ex. 9 that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this reference as the second party, being

casual labour who voluntarily abandoned service, does not fall within the definition of ‗workman‘ under

section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. However, Ld. Counsel for the employer has not been able to convince this

Tribunal as to how does this Tribunal lack jurisdiction on the basis of the employee being casual worker. The

employer – employee relations are not disputed in the instant case. The employer being United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., is an ‗industry‘ within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the I.D. Act. The second party /

employee is a ‗workman‘ as defined under section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the present dispute is no

doubt, an ‗industrial dispute‘ defined under section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act. It is thus clear that this Tribunal has

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present ‗industrial dispute‘.

12. The workman Shri Rajeshbhai Danabhai Dangar has deposed at Ex. 11 in examination-in-chief at par with

his statement of claim reiterating that he worked from August 2000 till 01.06.2006 continuously in place of

permanent peon Shri Chetan P. Khetani who was transferred to Jamnagar. The workman was orally

terminated on 01.06.2006 without notice / notice pay despite having completed 240 days of work in each

calendar year. He has clarified in his cross-examination that he used to get wages as a daily wager against the

number of days he worked. This statement of the workman is corroborated from the unrebutted photocopies

of the 144 salary vouchers for the period from July, 2001 to May, 2006 filed through Ex. 10.

13. The first party / employer has not produced any documentary evidence contrary to the above 144 salary

vouchers filed by the workman. The number of working days, if calculated on the basis of aforesaid salary

vouchers related to one year preceding his oral termination dated 01.06.2006, it comes to 316 days for the

period from June, 2005 to May, 2006 i.e. in the calendar year preceding the termination order dated

01.06.2006. The details are tabulated as under.

14. Number of working days as per salary disbursement vouchers :

Sl. No.

Month & Year

Number of days, the workman has

worked

Wages per day

Total wages

paid (in

rupees)

June, 2005

27 days

1890

July, 2005

1960

August, 2005

1960

September, 2005

1890

October, 2005

1890

November, 2005

1820

December, 2005

1750

January, 2006

1750

February, 2006

1610

March, 2006

1890

April, 2006

1820

May, 2006

2160

Total

316 days

574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15. The above unrebutted documentary evidence produced by the workman is sufficient to conclude that he did

work for 316 days in the calendar year preceding the termination order dated 01.06.2006, which is much

above 240 days, which are sufficient to show his continuous service in view of section 25 (B) of the

Industrial Dispute Act. The witness of the employer has deposed in his examination-in-chief at Ex. 17 in line

with the written statement, stating that the workman was casual labour and not a permanent or regular

employee. This employer‘s witness has clarified in his cross-examination that the department did not give

any notice to the workman when he voluntarily left the job. It is not disputed that there was no enquiry

conducted by the employer. Even no efforts to call upon the workman to join service in case he abandoned

the job, were made. It is an admitted fact that the workman has not been paid retrenchment compensation.

Hence the employer cannot get rid of his responsibility from acting in accordance with the relevant

provisions of I.D. Act.

16. It is abundantly clear on the basis of evidence appreciated as above that the second party / workman was

retrenched unjustifiably and illegally in violation of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

despite his continuous service of more than 240 days in view of section 25 (B) of the Industrial Dispute Act

without payment of retrenchment compensation. However, the workman has not mentioned even the name of

any junior / new person having been retained or engaged afresh at the time of his termination by the

employer. However, it is proved on the basis of above discussed cogent, unrebutted and convincing evidence

that the workman worked much above 240 days in the calendar year preceding his oral termination dated

01.06.2006. The aforesaid issue is accordingly decided partially in favour of the second party / workman.

17. Now coming to the relief clause, the employer‘s witness Shri Ravi Prakash Kamra, authorised officer of the

employer, has specifically stated that there is no vacancy, therefore, he (workman) cannot be appointed. This

is settled law that a casual or daily wager cannot be appointed against regular / permanent post without going

through the departmental recruitment procedure. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case,

it deems proper to award lump-sum compensation to the workman instead of his reinstatement. Keeping the

duration of service rendered by the workman with the first party / employer from August, 2000 to

31.05.2006, the first party / employer is directed to pay the second party workman a lump-sum compensation

of Rs. 200000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) within two months from the date of publication of award.

18. The reference is accordingly answered to the effect that the action of the management of the United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad / Rajkot in not providing employment to Shri Rajeshbhai D. Dangar, Ex-

Sweeper-cum-Peon after 01.06.2006 is neither justified nor legal. The workman is entitled to relief granted

as above. The award is passed accordingly.

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

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 265.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

आंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससड ृानीृत ररफाआनरी एंड ृेरोकेजमकल कॉम्प्लेक्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि

जनयोजकों और आंजडयन ऑयल ऑदफससड एसोजसएिन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं

श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-2, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-26/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज

जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-9]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 26/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; M/s Panipat Refinery and Petrochemical Complex and Indian Oil

Officers Association which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-9]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

575

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.26/2019

Registered on:-23.04.2019

Secretary, Indian Oil Officers Association, Panipat Refinery and Petrochemical Complex, Panipat-Haryana.

........Workmen/Union

Versus

1. General Manager(MS&HRD), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Refinery Division, Scope Complex, Core-

2, 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. Executive Director, I/C, M/s Panipat Refinery and Petrochemical Complex, IOCL, Panipat, Bholi,

Haryana.

......Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-06.12.2023

The workmen/union through its Secretary, Indian Oil Officers Association, Panipat Refinery and

Petrochemical Complex, Panipat-Haryana has directly filed this claim petition under Section 33-A of

the Industrial Dispute Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for staying the transfer of Shri S.K. Roy,

Secretary of the Association.

2. Earlier the case was fixed for filing objection by the management to the application filed by the

workmen-union for recalling the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by this Tribunal vide which the

opportunity of the workmen-union for filing evidence was closed by this Tribunal. It is submitted by

the learned counsel for management Sh. Paul S. Saini that none is turning up on behalf of the

workmen-union to press this application since long and today also, none is responding on behalf of

workmen-union.

3. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the learned counsel of management is

true. The workmen-union is given sufficient opportunities to press the application dated 11.02.2020

for recalling the order dated 27.09.2019 but none turned up in spite of the opportunity afforded, which

shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

4. Since the workmen-union has neither put his appearance for long and has left the case unattended, 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 reference for the non-prosecution of workmen-union.

5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act

for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 266.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

आंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससड अर. के. आलेजक्रकल्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री करमवीर के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-2, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-24/2018)

प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-6]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; M/s R.K. Electricals and Shri Karamvir which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-6]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 24/2018

Registered on:-31.10.2018

Sh. Karamvir S/o Sh. Puran, R/o VPO Padha, Tehsil Asandh, Distt. Karnal(Haryana)-132039.

........Workman

Versus

The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. IOCL, Panipat Refinery, Baholi, Distt.-

Panipat(Haryana)-132140.

M/s R.K. Electricals, Office & Residence Village & PO Gudha, Tehsil Gharounda, Distt.

Karnal(Haryana)-132114.

......Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-05.12.2023

1. The workman Karamveer has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement in service with continuity of service

with full back wages.

2. Today i.e. 05.12.2023 the case was fixed for cross-examination of the witness of respondent no.

1 Sh. Partap Singh, Chief E.R. Manager but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted

by the learned counsel of respondent no.1 Sh. Paul S. Saini as well as learned counsel for respondent

no.2 Sh. Bhim Singh that the workman is not turning up since long and several opportunities have

already been given to the workman to cross-examine the witness of respondent no.1.

3. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the learned counsel of respondent no.1

Sh. Paul S. Saini as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 Sh. Bhim Singh is true. The workman

is given sufficient opportunities to file claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity

afforded to file claim statement, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merit.

4. Since the workman has neither put his appearance for long and has left the case unattended, 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 reference for the non-prosecution of workman.

5. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act

for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 267.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

आंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससड सुनील कुमार जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और

श्री रोहताि कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-2, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-11/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-7]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

577

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 11/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; M/s Sunil Kumar Security Agency and Shri Rohtash Kumar which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-7]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.11/2019

Registered on:-05.04.2019

Sh. Rohtash Kumar S/o Sh. Chander Bhan, R/o Village Nizampur, P.O. Chandoli, Tehsil & District Panipat,

Haryana.

........Workman

Versus

The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Panipat Refinery and Petrochemical Complex,

Panipat-Haryana.

M/s Sunil Kumar Security Agency, Shop No.28, Pawan Mega Mall, Near HDFC Bank, Subhash Chowk,

SOnipat(Haryana)-131001.

......Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-29.11.2023

The workman Rohtash Kumar has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. Today i.e. 29.11.2023 the case was fixed for filing evidence of workman but none is responding on behalf

of workman while several opportunities have already been given to the workman for which shows that the

workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance for 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 reference for the non-prosecution of workman.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 268.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

आंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससड ऄमरीि चढ़ा जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री

लक्मण ंसह के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-2, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-10/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-8]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; M/s Amrish Chadha Security Agency and Shri Laxman Singh which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-8]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.10/2019

Registered on:-05.04.2019

Sh. Laxman Singh S/o Sh. Ramdiya, R/o Des Raj Colony, Devi Mandir Road, Panipat-132103(Haryana).

........Workman

Versus

The Executive Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Panipat Refinery and Petrochemical Complex,

Panipat-Haryana.

M/s Amish Chadha Security Agency, 11/7 Buta Singh Complex, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad,

Haryana-121003.

......Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-29.11.2023

The workman Laxman Singh has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. Today i.e. 29.11.2023 the case was fixed for filing evidence of workman but none is responding on

behalf of workman while several opportunities have already been given to the workman for which shows

that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance for 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 reference for the non-prosecution of workman.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 269.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

डायमंड जसक्योररटी ृसडनेल; मेससड एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री रामफल के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-2, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-169/2019)

प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-5]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 169/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

579

employers in relation to The Diamond Security Personnel; M/s LIC of India and Shri Ramphal which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-5]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.169/2019

Registered on:-19.12.2019

Sh. Ramphal S/o Sh. Radha Krishan, R/o Village Sacha Khera, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

........Workman

Versus

The Diamond Security Personnel through its Manager, 105, 1^st Floor, 389 Masjid Moth, NDSE-II, New

Delhi-110049.

M/s LIC of India, Narwana Branch, Narwana, District Jind, Haryana.

......Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-30.10.2023

1. The workman Ramphal has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute

Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement in service.

2. Today i.e. 30.10.2023, learned AR of workman has made a statement withdrawing the present case as the

workman has already expired which is recorded separately. In view of the statement made by the learned

AR of workman, the present case is dismiss as withdrawn. File after completion be consigned to the

record room.

3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 270.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

आंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; लाला हरभगवान दास मेमोररयल हॉजस्ट्ृटल एंड प्रेम हॉजस्ट्ृटल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि

जनयोजकों और श्री संजय कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-04/2011) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-30012/18/2010-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; Lala Harbhagwan Dass memorial Hospital & Prem Hospital and Shri

Sanjay Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-30012/18/2010-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.04/2011

Registered On: 29.04.2011

Sanjay Kumar, Pharmacist, S/o Sh. Daya Nand, R/o Village Dharamgarh, Gurukul Mor, Tehsil & District

Panipat.

...........Workman

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Panipat Refinery Project, Panipat, Through its Manager.

Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial Hospital & Prem Hospital, Panipat through its Manager/ Director.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:22.12.2023

Central Government vide Notification No. L-30012/18/2010-IR(M) dated 07.04.2011, 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 contract awarded by the management of IOCL, Panipat refinery is a sham

contract and contractor M/s Lala Harbhagwan Dass Memorial Hospital & Prem Hospital,

Panipat are a camaflouge & whether the job performed by the workmen is of perennial in

nature? If yes, the action of the management of IOCL in terminating the services of Sh. Sanjay

Kumar, Pharmacist w.e.f. 18.07.2003 is just, fair and legal? To what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for remaining evidence of

management 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.

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 cross examine the management witness

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.

Let copy of this award be sent to CentralGovernment for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 271.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाआफ आन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री सतृाल के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-33/2015) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-17012/1/2016-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

581

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 33/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Satpal which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/1/2016-IR(M)]

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.33/2015

Registered On: 22.02.2016

Sh. Satpal S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, R/o Gardra Patil, Village-Balu, Tehsil & Distt.- Kaithal, Haryana.

...........Workman

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Karnal (Haryana)-

132001.

The Chief Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Near Geeta Bhawan, Kaithal, Haryana.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 09.01.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-17012/1/2016-IR(Management) dated 08.02.2016,

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 action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Karnal Kaithal

in termination the services of the workman Sh. Satpal, S/o Mehar Singh is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?‖

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of 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.

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 for evidence of workman 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.

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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 272.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड 4515, भंलदर ंसह बरार जसक्योररटी एजेंसी; सेंरल वेयर हाईंसग कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और

श्री बलबीर ंसह के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-27/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-15]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 27/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s 4515, Bhalinder Singh Brar Security Agency; Central Ware Housing Corporation and Shri

Balbir Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-15]

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.27/2019

Registered On:-10.06.2019

Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Sucha Singh Age 58 years R/o Vill. Kalley Road, Harikrishan Nagar, Cherrata, Amritsar,

(Punjab) 143001.

...........Workman

Versus

M/s 4515, Bhalinder Singh Brar Security Agency, through its Proprietor Col. Bhalinder Singh Brar, SCF-

33, 1^st Floor, VIP Road-Zirakpur-140603.

The Manager, Central Ware Housing Corporation Integrated Check Post, Attari Amritsar-143001.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-12.01.2024

1. The workman Sh. Balbir 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.

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 and workman is also not responding

from many dates. Several opportunities have already been given to respondent No.2 to file written

statement but of no use which denotes that the management and workman both are 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 CentralGovernment for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 273.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड एचडीएफसी स्ट्टजण्डडड लाआफ आन्सुरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड; मेससड एचडीएफसी लाआफ आन्सुरेंस कंृनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के

संबि जनयोजकों और श्री राज कुमार सजनी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-08/2017) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-17]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

583

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited; M/s HDFC Life Insurance Company and

Shri Raj Kumar Saini which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-17]

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.08/2017

Registered On:-12.05.2017

Raj Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, R/o V.P.O. Adamwal, Tehsil & District Hoshiarpur, (Punjab)-146001.

...........Workman

Versus

M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 12-13 Flora, Lodha Excellence Apollo Mills

Compound, NM Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi, Maharashtra, Mumbai-400011. Through its Managing

Director.

M/s HDFC Life Insurance Company, 1^st and IInd Floor, Gupta Champer, Opposite Commission Office,

Jalandhar, Through its Branch Manager.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-16.01.2024

1. The workman Sh. Raj Kumar Saini 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.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by

workman but none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the

workman for filing replication but of no use 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 274.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एयरृोटड ऑथॉररटी ऑफ़ आंजडया एंड ऄन्य; मेससड ऄश्वनी कुमार मॉडल एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री

बहादुर ंसह के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-58/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-16]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 58/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Airport Authority of India; Ashwani Kumar Model Agency and Shri Bahadur Singh which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-16]

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.58/2019

Registered On:-21.08.2019

Sh. Bahadur Singh S/o Jaishi Ram, R/o Vill. Chharashu, P.O Mohal Tehsil & Distt. Kullu (HP) Pin Code

175126.

...........Workman

Versus

Airport Authority of India, # Corporate Head Quarter, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New

Delhi 110003.

Manager (Electrical Department) # Airport Authority of India, Kullu Manali Airport, Bhunter, (H.P.).

.......Principle Employer

Ashwani Kumar Contractor # M/s Ashwani Kumar Model Agency, SCO No.107, Sector 35-C,

Chandigarh.

…Employer/ Contractor

AWARD

Passed On:-12.01.2024

1. The workman Sh. Bahadur 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.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing written

statement by management but none is responding on its behalf, as workman is also not appearing from

many dates. Several opportunities have already been given to the management to file written statement, as

Workman is also not responding from many 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 275.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड गुजरात ऄम्बुजा सीमेंट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री कृ्‍ण चंद के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-139/2014) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-2]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

585

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 139/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Shri Krishan Chand which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-2]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Offier, Chandigarh.

ID No.139/2014

Registered On:-20.03.2015

Krishan Chand S/o Sh. Hari Ram, R/o Village Kunkunu, P.O. Navgaon, Tehsil Akri, Distt. Solan, H.P.

...........Workman

Versus

General Manager M/s Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd., House Unit Sub-Station No.3, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki,

Distt. Solan, H.P.

........Respondent

AWARD

Passed On:-06.12.2023

1. The workman Krishan Chand 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.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the 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.

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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 276.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार जे

ृी जहमाचल सीमेंट प्लांट एंड ऄन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री सुरेि कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-74/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-11]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 74/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant & Others and Shri Suresh Kumar which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-11]

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.74/2019

Registered On:-11.10.2019

Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram R/o Village and P.O. Dhar Totah Tehsil Sadar District, Bilaspur.

...........Workman

Versus

Senior General Manager (A&S) Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki

District, Solan HP.

Baldev Singh, Contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District

Solan HP.

Sansar Chand, contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District

Solan HP.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-21.12.2023

1. The workman Sh. Suresh 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.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing written

statement by the respondents. It is submitted that the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 that the workman is

not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

3. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 is true,

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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 277.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार जे

ृी जहमाचल सीमेंट प्लांट एंड ऄन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री राम ृाल के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-75/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-12]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

587

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 75/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant & Others and Shri Ram Pal which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-12]

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.75/2019

Registered On:-11.10.2019

Ram Pal S/o Sh. Lekh Ram R/o Village Jurassi P.O. Dubba Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur.

...........Workman

Versus

Sansar Chand, contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District Solan

HP.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 21.12.2023

The workman Sh. Ram Pal 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 filing written

statement by the respondents. It is submitted that the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 that the workman is

not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. AR of Management is true, 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 278.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार जे

ृी जहमाचल सीमेंट प्लांट एंड ऄन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री बलवंत कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-76/2019) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ

था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-13]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 76/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

relation to Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant & Others and Shri Balwant Kumar which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-13]

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.76/2019

Registered On:-11.10.2019

Balwant Kumar S/o Sh.Budhi Ram R/o Village Phuglatta P.O. Soldha Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur.

...........Workman

Versus

Senior General Manager (A&S) Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki

District, Solan HP.

S.K. Rai, Contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District Solan,

HP.

Bacha Tiwari, Contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District

Solan, H.P.

Sansar Chand, contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District

Solan HP.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On:21.12.2023

1. The workman Sh. Balwant 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.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing written

statement by the respondents. It is submitted that the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 that the workman is

not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

3. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 is true,

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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 279.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार जे

ृी जहमाचल सीमेंट प्लांट एंड ऄन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री बाबू राम के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-77/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2024-अइअर(एम)-14]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 77/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

589

relation to Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant & Others and Shri Balwant Kumar which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-14]

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.77/2019

Registered On:-11.10.2019

Babu Ram S/o Sh. Dalela Ram R/o Village Solej Jurassi P.O. Dubba Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur.

...........Workman

Versus

Senior General Manager (A&S) Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki

District, Solan HP.

Baldev Singh, Contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District

Solan HP.

Sansar Chand, contractor C/o Jay Pee Himachal Cement Plant Bagga P.O. Kandhar Tehsil Arki District

Solan HP.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 21.12.2023

1. The workman Sh. Babu Ram 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.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing written

statement by the respondents. It is submitted that the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 that the workman is

not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

3. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. AR of Respondent No.1 & 3 is true,

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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 280.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाआफ आन्िुरन्स कारृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री टीका ईदय कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-15/2019) को जजसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17012/26/2018-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 15/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri Teeka Uday kumar, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/26/2018-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 6^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 15/2019

Between:

Sri Teeka Uday Kumar,

D.No. 4-47, Ummalada Village,

Munagapaka Mandalam, Anakapalli City,

Visakhapatnam-531001.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

LIC Builiding, Jeevan Prakash Road,

Visakhapatnam-531001.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

None

For the Respondent: Sri Vankatesh dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/26/2018-IR(M), dated 17.12.2018

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

SCHEDULE

1.―Whether Sh. Teeka Uday Kumar, designated as Direct Sales Executives (DSE-9089069) under the

management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam is workman as

per section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947?

If yes, whether the termination from 01.04.2018 of the services of Sh. Teeka Uday Kumar designated as

Direct Sales Executive (DSE) by the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional

Office, Visakhapatnam is fair, legal and justified? If not, then what relief(s) including reinstatement in

service the workman is entitled to and from which date? What other directions (if any) are necessary in this

regard?

―2. Whether the action of Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam upon

introduction of new scheme named as Chief Organizer (LIC Direct) Scheme, 2015 in place of the erstwhile

LICI (Direct Sales Executives) Scheme, 2009 with its amendment by allegedly depriving the workman by

changing the conditions of his services in terms of job security remuneration etc. is legal and/ or justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 15/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

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

case belongs to year 2019 and lingering for filing of claim statement by petitioner. Record reveals that notice served

on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. In absence of Petitioner and claim statement, the case is

dismissed for default and a ‗No Claim‘ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

591

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 06^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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 281.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाआफ आन्िुरन्स कारृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री नक़्क़ा नारायणा राव के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-95/2014) को जजसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17012/15/2014- अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 95/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri Nakka Narayana Rao , which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/15/2014-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 18^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 95/2014

Between:

Sri Nakka Narayana Rao,

S/o Dharmayya,

D.No.40131, Near Penthekostu Church,

SC Colony, Komarajulanka, Ravulapalem,

E.G. District – 533238.

..….Petitioner

AND

592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Branch Mangaer,

LIC of India,

Ravulapalem Branch,

Ravulapalem

E.G. Dist.

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Party in Person

For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 15/2014-IR(M) dated 12.5.2014

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

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

SCHEDULE

―Whether the removal from service of Sri N. Narayana Rao, Ex.Temp. Class –IV, LIC of India,

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

entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.95/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

On the date fixed for filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent despite sufficient number of

opportunities have been provided to him. It thus becomes crystal clear that the petitioner seems to be not interested

in pursuing his case. 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 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 marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 282.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाआफ आन्िुरन्स कारृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री च. प ृ कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-177/2014) को जजसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17012/58/2014-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

593

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 177/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri Ch. Rup Kumar, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/58/2014-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 25^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 177/2014

Between:

Sri Ch. Rup Kumar,

C/o T. Satyanarayana,

D.No.2-171, Pata Post Office Centre,

Bommuru, Rajahmundry,

E.G. Dist.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri V.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 58/2014-IR(M) dated 4.8.2014

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

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

SCHEDULE

―Whether the removal from service of Sri Ch. Rup Kumar, Ex.Temp. Class –IV, LIC of India,

Rajahmundry D.O. Branch w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the

workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 177/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner evidence. Respondent present. Record reveals that

Petitioner is not appearing in this case since the year 2018. It seems that Petitioner is not interested to pursue his case.

Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not choose to file evidence affidavit. Hence, absence of

Petitioner and non-filing Petitioner evidence affidavit to substantiate his claim, 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 by me on this the 25^th day of

October, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 283.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाआफ आन्िुरन्स कारृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री ज. दुगाड प्रसाद के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-100/2014) को जजसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17012/20/2014-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 100/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri J. Durga Prasad, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/20/2014-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 25^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 100/2014

Between:

Sri J. Durga Prasad,

C/o G. Abbal,

D.No.2-67, Kothapeta,

Near Water Tank,

Bommuru (P.O.), Rajahmundry (Rural),

Rajahmundry.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry.

… Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

595

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri V.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 20/2014-IR(M) dated 13.5.2014

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

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

SCHEDULE

―Whether the removal from service of Sri K. Durga Prasad, Ex.Temp. Class –IV, LIC of India,

Rajahmundry D.O. w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is

entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 100/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner evidence. Respondent present. Record reveals that

Petitioner is continuously remained absent since July, 2019. It seems that Petitioner is not interested to pursue his

case. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not choose to file evidence affidavit. Hence, absence

of Petitioner and non-filing Petitioner evidence affidavit to substantiate his claim, 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 by me on this the 19^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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 284.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाआफ आन्िुरन्स कारृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री एन. श्रीजनवासु के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-180/2014) को जजसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17012/61/2014-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 180/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri N. Srinivasu , which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/61/2014-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25^th day of October, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 180/2014

Between:

Sri N. Srinivasu,

S/o Krishna Murthy,

Pekeru (P.O.)

Iragavaram (M),

W.G.. Dist.-534320.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry.

The Branch Mangaer,

LIC of India,

Tanuku Branch,

Tanuku,

W.G. Dist.

… Respondents Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri V.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/ 61/2014-IR(M) dated 4.8.2014

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

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

SCHEDULE

―Whether the removal from service of Sri N.. Srinivasu, Ex.Temp. Class –IV, LIC of India, Tanuku

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

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 180/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner evidence. Respondent present. Record reveals that

Petitioner is continuously remained absent since the year 2018. It seems that Petitioner is not interested to pursue his

case. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not choose to file evidence affidavit. Hence, absence

of Petitioner and non-filing Petitioner evidence affidavit to substantiate his claim, 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 by me on this the 25^th day of

October, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

597

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 285.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड ओररएण्टल आन्सुरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और श्री सुनील कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़-1, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-31/2019) को जजसा दक

था l

[सं. एल-17012/21/2019-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Mr. Sunil Kumar which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17012/21/2019-IR(M)]

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.31/2019

Registered On: 18.06.2019

Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma R/o Gali No.3, Ekta Bhawan, Vinod Nagar, Mill Gate, Hisar (Haryana).

...........Workman

Versus

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. H.O.—Oriental House,

P.B. No. 7037mA-2527, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110023.

The Deputy Manager & Appellate Authority, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Jeevan

Jyoti Bhawan, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana), Pin Code-133001.

The Assistant Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Jeevan Jyoti Bhawan, Jagadhari

Road, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana), Pin Code-133001.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 22.12.2023

Central Government vide Reference No. L-17012/21/2019-IR(M) dated 27.05.2019, 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:-

598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the action of the management of Oriental Insurance Company Limited in

terminating the services of Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma, Sub Staff vide

Order dated 10.02.2012 is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma

is entitled to and from which date? What other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?‖

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing claim statement

by workman but none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the

workman 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 filed any claim statement 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 the 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 286.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन हेडक् वाटडर, सजन्य क्षेत्र, ृरटयाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बजाज ेकेदार जनवासी एल.अइ.जी. 175,

ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj गुरप्रीत ंसह, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (167/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-86]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 167/2016) 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 Gurpreet Singh.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-86]

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. 167/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Lal R/o Village Malaur P.O. Chaur Mastpura Distt. Ambala (Haryana),

C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

599

AWARD

Passed On:-12.12.2023

The workman Sh. Gurpreet 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 287.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj संजय ंसह, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (168/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-87]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 168/2016) 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 Sapna.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-87]

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. 168/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Sapna W/o Ashwani Kumar R/o Near Pathi Streets, New Basti, Badhungar, Distt. Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh &

Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office 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

600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed On:-12.12.2023

The workman Smt. Sapna 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 288.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj ऄजजत ंसह, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (169/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-88]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 169/2016) 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 Ajit Singh.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-88]

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.169/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Dass R/o H.No.6, Mohalla No.31, Jalandhar Cantt, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar,

Resident-cum-Office 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 राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

601

AWARD

Passed On:-12.12.2023

The workman Sh. Ajit 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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

नइ ददल् ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 289.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds

ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj ऄश्वनी कुमार, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (170/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-89]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 170/2016) 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 Ashwani Kumar.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-89]

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.170/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Som Nath R/o New Pathi Street, New Basti, Badungar Distt. Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh

& Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office 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

602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed On:-12.12.2023

The workman Sh. Ashwani 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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

नइ ददल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 290.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड जभलाइ स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल; मेससड ऑटो ररृेयर िॉृ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और जनरल सेिेटरी,

लोकताजन्त्रक आस्ट्ृात एंड आंजीजनयटरग मज़दूर यूजनयन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं

श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-20/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 08.02.2024 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-26011/25/2018-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2019) 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 M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL; M/s Auto Repair Shop and The General Secretary, Loktantrik Ispat &

Engineering Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

08.02.2024.

[No. L-26011/25/2018-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/20/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary,

Loktantrik Ispat & Engineering Mazdoor Union,

R/o At-Labour Camp, Jamul, Bhilai,

District - Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490024

Workman

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL,

Post-Bhilai, District - Durg,

Chhattisgarh-490001.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

603

The Incharge,

M/s Auto Repair Shop, Plant Garage,

Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg,

Chhattisgarh - 490001.

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 09^th day of January-2024.)

As per letter dated 10/01/2019 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

No. L-26011/25/2018 - IR(M) dt. 10/01/2019 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"Whether the Applicants Shri Dhananjay Kumar Dubey (Personnel No. 152849) & Others (as per list

annexed by the Union) who were placed in the Line of Promotion (LOP) of the Merged Pool are

entitled to be placed in the Line of Promotion, in their erstwhile Vehicle Section & EME Section under

the Auto Repair Shop of Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL and for corresponding seniority, promotion & other

related consequential benefits from the date of their respective initial appointment in that Section or

what other relief the workmen are entitled to?"

After registering a 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 filed a

statement of defence.

Vide order dated 9/03/2022 the reference proceeded ex-parte against workman.

Management filed an affidavit of its witness in support of its case.

Heard ex-parte argument of Shri R.C. Srivastava Learned Counsel of management and perused the record.

Reference is itself an issue for determination.

Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman in which he has utterly failed as it is established from the facts

mentioned above. Hence holding the claim not proved the reference deserved to answer against the workman and

answered accordingly.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2024

का.अ. 291.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और ईनके कमडकार/यूजनयन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-06/2011) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

[सं. एल-17011/2/2011- अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2024

S.O. 291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 06/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

LIC of India and Their Workman/Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 08.02.2024.

[No. L-17011/2/2011-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 06 OF 2011

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

LIC of India

AND

Their Workman/Union

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Debtosh Chakraborty, Authorised Representative.

On behalf of the Workman

: Mr. Dipak Kumar Pal, Advocate.

Dated: 21^st November, 2023

AWARD

Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-17011/2/2011- IR(M) dated 07-09-2011 in exercise of

the power conferred under section 10(1)(b) and (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

―Whether the action of the management of LIC of India for not promoting Ex-serviceman Shri Amar Kr.

Dey, working as typist since 1987 and thus denying him the promotion as per LIC Promotion Rules is justified? What

relief the concerned employee is entitled to?‖

The facts giving rise to the present reference in gist is that Shri Amar Kumar Dey was a Havilder Clerk of

Electrical Mechanical Corps of Indian Army. He was born on 05-06-1958 as per certificate of discharge (Exb.

W/15). He joined the Defence Service on 12^th April, 1980 and was discharged from Defence Service on 01-07-1988.

Then he was appointed as Typist in the Cadre of Class-III Clerical Staff in LICI in the year 1989 on re-employment as

an Ex-serviceman.

In the due course of his employment as a Typist Clerk, he appeared in the departmental test for promotion to

the cadre of H.G.A. (Administration) on 31-08-1997 and he was declared qualified in the test and ranked in 28^th

position on 09-09-1997. However, it has been alleged by the union which has espoused the present dispute despite

being placed on 28^th position among 75 qualified candidates for promotion he was never promoted to the higher grade

by the management of LICI. That he was superseded by junior employees from the year 1997 to 2010. That though he

being an Ex-serviceman but having joined a regular post in LICI, he is entitled to promotion for higher post on

completion of one year service as per LICI Promotion Rules, 1987 or in case no promotion was given to him then he

is entitled to one higher grade scale of pay. Therefore, by raising the present dispute the union has sought for a regular

promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistant to the concerned workman with retrospective effect from 23-08-1990

as per Rule 7 of LICI Promotion Rules, 1987 or any other relief to which he is entitled to.

On the other hand it has been contended by the LICI in its written statement that the concerned workman

being an Ex-serviceman and not being an Ex-emergency/Short Service/Regular Commissioned Officer or Schedule

Caste/ Schedule Tribes candidate he is not entitled to get any promotion to the higher post. Therefore, he is not

entitled to get the relaxation provided under Cluse-7 of LICI Promotion Rules, 1987.

It has also been alleged, to get promotion to the higher rank one has to obtain minimum aggregate marks in

respect of the Seniority, Qualification and Confidential Report. The promotion is based on merit, suitability of the

candidate for a particular post and seniority. Merit and suitability are judged by confidential report or interviews or

through examinations.

The concerned workman though passed the departmental test for promotion to the cadre of Higher Grade

Assistant in the year 1997 but he never attained the minimum marks in respect of seniority, qualification and

confidential report to appear for interview.

Further, it has been alleged by the management that in the year 2007-08 and 2009-10 a list of candidates for

promotion to the cadre of Higher Grade Assistant was prepared but the concerned workman failed to attain the

minimum marks for promotion.

That the concerned workman moved the Hon‘ble High Court by filing a writ petition being No. 12170(W)

of 2011 for his promotion but the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

605

The concerned workman having failed to obtain necessary marks for promotion and as such he was

disqualified for promotion and he was never superseded. Thus the management of LICI has prayed for dismissal of

the reference.

The record shows the concerned workman has examined himself as W.W. No.1. On the other hand Smt.

Tinni Mukherjee, Administrative Officer was examined as M.W.No.1. The order sheet dated 07-05-2014 further

shows 29 documents filed by the union/workman have been marked as Exhibit-W-1 to W-29 on formal proof being

dispensed with on. Similarly, 8 documents filed by the management have been marked as Exhibit-M-1 to M-8 on

formal proof being dispensed with.

Having considered the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence as well as the written

notes of argument filed by both sides and to adjudicate the dispute under reference it is necessary to find out whether

the concerned workman an Ex-serviceman was re-employed against a sanctioned regular post of Typist in the Cadre

of Class-III Clerical Staff in LICI in the year 1989.

Exhibit-W-2 the appointment letter of the workman shows that he having qualified in an interview for the

post of Typist in LICI, he was appointed as a Typist in the basic pay of Rs.1,000/- per month, while Exhibit-W-3

shows the workman an Ex-serviceman joined the service of a Typist in LICI w.e.f. 23-08-1989 and his basic pay was

fixed at Rs.1,240/- per month. Clause -3 of Appointment Letter further shows the appointment of the concerned

workman shall be governed by the Staff Regulation of the Corporation and by such instructions and/or orders that

may be issued orally and in writing. Clauses-4 and 5 provides that he will be on probation for a period of six months

from the date of joining the duty and which may be extended by another six months and subject to discharge without

notice and without cause being assigned. Clasue-6 provides that his working hours will be 6-1/4 hours excluding

lunch interval on all weak days except Saturdays and 3-1/2 hours on Saturdays and which is subject to change from

time to time. Clause-9 provides that his service is subject to transfer anywhere in India where the Corporation has its

office. The clause -12 provides that he was allotted Salary Roll No. 340390.

The terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter prima facie proves the concerned workman was

given appointment against a sanctioned post of a Typist or against a regular vacancy. It nowhere contains that he was

given appointment in the quota of Ex-serviceman. It further shows that his service condition was subjected to Staff

Regulations of the Corporation i.e. LICI Staff (Rules). Therefore, this Tribunal is of view the concerned workman

joined LICI as a Typist Class-III staff and whose appointment was subjected to LICI Staff (Rules).

It is the case of the management the workman being an Ex-serviceman he is not entitled to get benefit of

relaxation as provided in clause-7 of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-III & Class-IV Employees

(Promotion) Rules, 1987 and as such he is not eligible for promotion to the higher post.

It is very unfortunate to note that the management of LICI has failed to produce Life Insurance Corporation

of India Class-III & Class-IV Employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987 to substantiate its case and claim. However, the

Tribunal has downloaded the above rules from internet and which read as follows:-

The Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987.

G.S.R. 824(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of

1956) and in supersession of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Promotion) Regulations, 1976 issued under

section 49 of the said Act, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central

Government hereby makes the following rules regulating the promotions of Class III and Class IV employees of the

Life Insurance Corporation of India, namely:-

Short title and commencement:

(1) These rules may be called the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees

(Promotion) Rules, 1987.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

Definition: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a)

―Act‖ means the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956 (31 of 1956);

(b)

―Employee‖ means a whole time salaried employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India;

(c)

―Promoting authority‖ means the appointing authority under the Staff Regulation;

(d)

―Promotion committee‖ means the committee constituted in accordance with regulation 7 of the

Staff Regulations;

(e)

―Schedule‖ means the Schedule annexed to these rules;

(f)

―Staff Regulations‖ means the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960.

606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(g)

―Zone of Selection‖ means the specified area in which the employee competes for selection by

promotion;

(h)

All other words and expressions used in these rules and not defined but defined in the Staff

Regulations shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Staff Regulations.

Zone of selection:

(1)

Promotions to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officers, other than those mentioned in sub

rule(3), shall be effected from among the eligible employees in all the offices situated within the

territorial limit of a Zonal Office.

(2)

(a) Promotions to all cadres in Class III including promotions to the posts of Engineering or

Architectural Assistants Grade II and Grade III and Higher Grade Assistant (Projectionist) shall be

effected from among the eligible employees in all the offices situated within the territorial limit of a

Zonal Office

(b)

Promotion to all cadres in Class IV shall be effected from among the eligible employee in all the

offices situated within the territorial limit of a Divisional Office.

(3)

Promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer or Assistant Architect in the scale of Assistant

Administrative Officers shall be effected from among the eligible employees on an all-India basis.

Vacancies:

(1)

Promotions shall be effected only against vacancies against sanctioned posts.

(2)

Posts shall be reserved for employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

and ex-emergency or Short Commissioned Officers in accordance with the orders issued by the

Central Government from time to time.

Conditions of eligibility and criteria for selection:

(1)

The categories of employees eligible for promotion to various cadres, their conditions of eligibility

for promotion and criteria for their selection shall be as specified in the Schedule.

(2)

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Chairman may direct that an employee who

has excelled in any field of sports or athletics at the national or international level or has received

any national or international award in any cultural, literacy or, scientific activity, may be promoted

to the next higher cadre.

Selection of candidates for promotion:

(1)

There shall be prepared a panel of all eligible employees in the order of total marks obtained on the

basis of criteria of selection specified in rule 5.

(2)

Out of the panel prepared in accordance with sub-rule (1), all the candidates in the order of merit

equal to five times the number of vacancies may be called for interview by the Promotion

Committee: Provided that an employee with below average work record, as per standards specified

by the Chairman shall not be included in the panel prepared under sub-rule (1).

(3)

The Promotion Committee shall, after interviewing the candidates prepare a ranking list on the basis

of the criteria laid down in the Schedule which shall be determined on the basis of the total marks

gained by the candidate for seniority, qualifications and confidential report and interview.

(4)

If the Promoting Authority is unable to accept the recommendations of the Promotion Committee in

any particular case, it shall record in writing, the reasons for disagreeing with the recommendations

of the Committee and pass such orders as it deem fit. The ranking list, as finally approved by the

Promoting Authority, shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date it was prepared.

The Chairman may, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the

period of validity of the ranking list by a further period not exceeding one year.

(5)

Actual selection and appointment of the candidates against sanctioned vacancies shall be made by

the Promoting Authority from the ranking list in the order of merit:

Provided that an employee shall not be promoted, if at any time during the preceding one year, any

penalty has been imposed on him under regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations.

Selection by departmental test:

(1)

Wherever departmental tests are specified in the Schedule for promotion, the syllabus or such test

shall be as determined by the Chairman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

607

(2)

The conditions of eligibility including seniority and qualifications for appearing in the departmental

test shall be reckoned as on the 1st day of the month in which the notification is issued for

promotion by the Promoting Authority: Provided that only such of the employees who have

completed the period of service specified for eligibility for promotion to any post shall be allowed

to appear in the said departmental test.[Provided further that the period of training, if any, relevant

to the post of Assistant, prior to appointment on probation prescribed by the provisions relating to

recruitment shall count as service in the scale of Assistant only for the purpose of eligibility for

promotion]*

Relaxation:

The Chairman may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 4, by general or special instruction, relax

any of the provisions of these rules in case of employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, ex-

emergency Officers or Short-commissioned Officers.

Appeals:

Any aggrieved employee may, within one month from the date on which the ranking list is published,

represent against his non-selection through proper channel to the authority to which the promoting authority is

immediately subordinate and such an authority may consider the representations and pass such orders as it deems fit.

10.

Powers to issue instructions:

(1) The Chairman may, from time to time, issue instructions as may be necessary to give effect to an

implementation of the provisions of these rules.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-rule (1), such instructions

may provide for basis for detailed allocation of marks for seniority, qualification and confidential reports (work

record) within the ceiling specified under these rules.

11.

Interpretation:

If any doubt arises as regards interpretation of these rules, it shall be referred to the Central Government for

its decision.

SCHEDULE

(See Rules 2(3), 5, 6 and 7)

CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTIONS TO VARIOUS CADRES

Sl.

No.

For Promotion to the

cadre of

Categories eligible

Conditions of eligibility

Marks to be allotted

Assistant Administrative

Officers

a) i) Higher Grade

Assistants

b) ii) Section

Heads

a) 5 years‘ service in the

scale of Higher Grade

Assistants. Minimum

service relaxable up to 3

years by Chairman

depending upon the

availability of candidates in

the said cadre OR 6 years‘

service in the scale of

Section Heads OR

Combined service of 6 years

in the scale of Higher Grade

Assistant and/or Section

Head.

a) Qualification and

seniority: (Maximum

of 10 marks for

qualification and20

marks for seniority)

Maximum for both 25

Work Record 25

Interview 25

b) [Assistants and

Stenographers]*

b) 5 years‘ service in the

scale of Assistants or Higher

and maximum age [45]#

years with academic

qualifications Matric/HSC

and technical qualification

FFII Bombay or 5 subjects

of Institute of Actuaries,

London [or Actuarial

Society of India]** and a

pass in Promotion Test.

b) For selection of

Assistant etc. who

passed promotion test

;

Test 50

Work record 25

Interview-25

608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

c) Higher Grade

Assistants @

@Regular employees with

minimum two years service

as HGA (Finance) with

maximum age 45 years and

pass in the final exam of

Institute of Chartered

Accountants of India or

Institute of Company

Secretaries of India or

Institute of Cost

Accountants of India and

have acquired membership

of the respective

Institute/Body

@ Work Record 25

Interview 25

Assistant Administrative

Officer (Personal

Assistant)

Higher Grade Assistants

(Stenographers)

5 years‘ service as Higher

Grade Assistants

(Stenographer)

Qualification and

Seniority: (Maximum

10 marks for

qualification and 20

marks Assistants) for

seniority)Maximum

for both 25

Work Record 25

Interview 25

Mobile Van Officers

(Assistant

Administrative Officers)

Higher Grade Assistants

(Projectionists) and other

categories which satisfy

the standards laid down

for direct recruitment

from time to time

5 years‘ service in the cadre

of Higher Grade Assistants.

(Projectionists)

Qualification and

seniority: (Maximum

of 10 marks for

qualification and 20

marks for seniority)

Maximum for both25

Work Record 25

Interview25

[ ]* Notified in Gazette of India dated 30.04.1990 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)

[ ]** Notified in Gazette of India dated 22.04.1997 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)

[ ] # Notified in Gazette of India dated 21.10.2011 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)

(G.S.R.No.779 (E))

@ Notified in Gazette of India dated 12.09.2012 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)

(G.S.R.No.690 (E))

Sl.

No.

For Promotion to the

cadre of

Categories eligible

Conditions of

eligibility

Marks to be allotted

Assistant Administrative

Officers (Programmer)

Higher Grade

Assistants

ii) ii) Section

Heads

5 years‘ service in the

scale of Higher Grade

Assistants OR 6 years‘

service in the scale of

Section Heads AND A

pass in the Aptitude

Test for all except

Higher Grade

Assistants

(Programmer)

Qualification and seniority:

(Maximum of 10 marks for

qualification and 20 marks

for seniority) Maximum for

both 25

Work Record 25

Interview 25.

Higher Grade Assistants

Section Heads

Stenographers

Assistants and all

other employees on

the scale of Section

Heads or Assistants.

a) Section Heads OR

b) 5 years‘ service in

the scale of [Assistant

or Stenographer]*

and a pass in the

Departmental Test or

on acquiring

prescribed technical

qualifications OR c)

Qualification and seniority:

(Maximum of 10 marks for

qualificationand20marks for

seniority)

Maximum for both 25

WorkRecord25

Interview25

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

609

10years‘ service in the

scale of [Assistants or

Stenographers]*

Higher Grade Assistants

(Stenographers)

Stenographer

5 years service as

Stenographers

Qualification and seniority:

(Maximum of 10 marks for

qualification and 20 marks

for seniority) Maximum for

both 25 Work Record 25

Interview 25

Higher Grade Assistants

(Projectionist)

Projectionist

5 years‘ service as

Projectionist

Higher Grade Assistants

(Programmers)

Section Heads

Microprocessor

Operators,

[Assistants and

Stenographers]*

Section Head

(Machine) OR Section

Head other than

Section Head

(Machine) With

knowledge of ---‖---

Key Punch operation

or Computer Course

OR 5 years‘ service as

Microprocessor

Operator OR 5 years‘

service and knowledge

of Key Punch

operation or Computer

Course for those in the

scale of [Assistants or

stenographers]*and a

pass in Aptitude Test

for all

Higher Grade Assistant

(Data Processing)

Punch Card

Operators Adrema

Operators

5 years‘ service as

Punch Card Operator

or Adrema Operator

[ ]* Notified in gazette of India dated 30.04.1990 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification).

Sl.

No.

For Promotion to the

cadre of

Categories eligible

Conditions of

eligibility

Marks to be allotted

Assistants

a) Record Clerks

Graduate Record

Clerks OR Record

Clerks possessing

direct recruitment

qualifications

prescribed for the post

of Assistant from time

to time; OR 5 years‘

service as Record

Clerk and pass in SSC

Exam. If qualified

before 1979, otherwise

HSC(Std.XII); OR 10

years‘ service as

Record Clerk and a

pass in the

Departmental Test [OR

15 years‘ service as

Record Clerk]*

. Marks will be allotted as

follows:

Seniority -15

Qualification -10

Work Record -30

Interview-30

b) All Class-IV Staff

** 2 years‘ service in

Class-IV category

possessing

qualifications

prescribed for direct

** Promotion Test -50

Work Record -25

Interview-25

610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recruits for the post of

Assistant and pass in

the Promotion Test

11.

Record Clerks

b) All Class-IV Staff

2 years‘ service in

Class-IV category and

a pass in Departmental

Test OR 2 years‘

service in Class-IV

category and a pass in

Secondary School

Certificate or

equivalent examination

with English and

Mathematics OR

Graduation

Seniority 15 Qualification 5

Work Record 40 Interview

Sepoys/ Watchmen/

Liftmen

Sweepers & Cleaners

3 years‘ service and

possessing minimum

qualification of VII

Std.pass.

Assistant Engineers/

Assistant Architects

i) Engineering/

Architectural Assistants

Gr.I ii) Engineering/

Architectural Assistants

Gr.II

All Engineering/

Architectural

Assistants Grade-I OR

All Engineering/

Architectural

Assistants Grade-II

with 3 years‘ service

and holding a degree in

Engineering/

Architecture OR All

Engineering/

Architectural

Assistants Grade-II

with 5 years‘ service

and holding a diploma

in Engineering/

Architecture.

Qualification and seniority:

(Maximum 10 marks for

qualification and 20 marks

for seniority)Maximum for

both 25Work Record

25Interview 25

[ ] * Notified in gazette of India dated 30.04.1990 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)

[ ] ** Notified in gazette of India dated 22.04.1997 and came into force with immediate effect (date of notification)

Sl.

No.

For Promotion to the

cadre of

Categories eligible

Conditions of

eligibility

Marks to be allotted

14.

Engineering/

Architectural Assistants

Grade-II

Engineering/

Architectural Assistants

Grade-III

All Engineering/

Architectural

Assistants Grade-III

with 2 years‘ service

and holding a degree in

Engineering/

Architecture OR All

Engineering Assistants

Grade-III with 5 years‘

service and holding a

diploma in

Engineering/

Architecture

Qualification and seniority:

(Maximum 10 marks for

qualification and 20 marks

for seniority)Maximum for

both 25

Work Record 25 Interview

15.

Engineering/

Architectural Assistants

Grade- III

Plumbers/Electricians/

Painters/ Polishers/

Masons /Pump

Mechanics/

Carpenters/Mistries/

Ferro Printers

5 years‘ service and a

diploma in

Engineering

Seniority 15 Qualification

Work Record 30 Interview

16.

Plumbers/Painters/

Helpers/Watermen

5 years‘ service and a

Seniority 15 Qualification 5

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

611

Polishers/Masons / Pump

Mechanics/ Carpenters/

Mistries/

prescribed certificate

in the respective trade

OR 10 years‘ service

and a certificate from

the office of the

Engineering/Building

Department certifying

the skill and

competence in the

respective trade

Work Record 40 Interview

Electricians

Helpers

5 years‘ service and a

Wireman‘s certificate

Note: a) ―Prescribed technical qualifications‖ mean any one of the following:-

Associateship of Federation of Insurance Institutes/Chartered Insurance Institute or Diploma of the

Indian Life Assurance Offices‘ Association.

ii)

Intermediate of the Institute of Chartered Accounts of India.

iii)

Pass in any two subjects of the Institute of Actuaries, London [or Actuarial Society of India]**

iv)

Pass in the final examination of the Institute of Cost and Work Accountants of India.

Graduate examination in law with at least 50% marks in the aggregate.

vi)

LL.M. or M.Com. Or Ph.D. or M.B.A.

b) Certificate/ Diploma/ Degree should pertain to the respective wind, such as, Civil, Electrical or

Architectural Wing, as the case may be. **

c) Promotions to the cadre of Assistants under Sr.No.10 from all Class-IV Staff shall not exceed 10% of

the vacancies sanctioned in the said post.

Footnote: - The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India vide notification

No.G.S.R.No.824 (E) dated 25th September, 1987 and subsequently amended vide G.S.R.No. 462(E)

dated 30th April, 1990, G.S.R.No.229 (E) dated 23rd April, 1991, G.S.R.No.226 (E) dated 22.04.1997,

G.S.R. No.833 (E) dated 30.12.1999, G.S.R.No.779 (E) dated21.10.2011 and G.S.R.No.690 (E) dated

12.09.2012.

Thus the above The Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees (Promotion)

Rules, 1987, nowhere speaks about relaxation in favour of Ex-emergency/ short service/ regular commissioned officer

and schedule caste and schedule tribes candidates who are employed as a Clerk Grade-III in LICI in case of

promotion as alleged by the management of LICI in para 11, 12, 13 and 14 of its written statement and as alleged by

M.W. No.1 in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of her evidence in chief on affidavit.

On the other hand the Exhibit-W/2 and W/3 show that concerned workman an Ex-serviceman was appointed

against a sanctioned post of a Typist in LICI on 23-08-1989 on being qualified in an interview and in the scale of

Rs.1,000 - Rs.2,850 and his basic pay was fixed at Rs.1,240/- per month. Exhibit-W/4 further shows that he was

granted graduation allowance w.e.f. 23-08-1989 to 30-06-1990 and was given two increments w.e.f. 01-07-1990

raising his basic pay from Rs.1,450 to Rs.1,610 per month. Exhibit-W/5 shows that on completion of one year

satisfactory service, his service as a Typist was confirmed on 10-03-1990. All these documents prima facie prove that

the concerned workman was given all the benefits to which an ordinary regular employee of LICI is entitled to.

Therefore, in view of he falls within the definition of salaried employee as provided in Rule 2(b) of The Life

Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees (Promotion) Rules, 1987.

That apart Exhibit-W/12 further proves that there was a departmental test for promotion to the cadre of HGA

(Administration) on 31-08-1997 and the concerned workman was one of the candidates who appeared in the

departmental test for promotion. It further proves that in the result declared on 09-09-1997 the concerned workman

was placed on 28^th position among the 75 qualified candidates. Since he has joined the service of LICI as Typist on

23-08-1989 and he having put more than five years of service as a Typist as per promotion rules of 1987 he was

qualified for the promotion on the day he appeared for departmental test on 31-08-1997. Further, the management has

failed to produce the service book of the concerned workman to show adverse remarks in his service career which dis-

entitled him the promotion even after passing departmental examination for promotion. It is worth to mention that the

612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management has failed to produce any records to show that for misconduct there was a disciplinary or vigilance

proceeding against the concerned workman.

Moreover, it is not the case of the management that they did not give promotion to the concerned workman

as because there was a pending disciplinary or vigilance proceeding against him, rather the management has taken a

plea that the concerned workman being an Ex-serviceman he does not come within the category of the Ex-serviceman

as contained in clause 7 of the LICI Promotion Rules, 1987 but the Clause-7 of Rules of 1987 does not contain such

provision as alleged by the management. In fact it appears the management has come with such plea without any basis

but on surmise and conjecture.

Since the concerned workman though an Ex-serviceman was appointed against a vacancy which was filled

up by way of direct recruitment he is entitled to get all the service benefits to which an ordinary employee of LICI is

entitled to. Therefore, he cannot be deprived of his promotion.

The workman in his evidence in chief has categorically stated that he cleared the promotional examination in

the year 1997, but he was not given any promotion by the employer LICI, but this Tribunal does not find any cross

examination on such statement of the workman by the management. The management has merely put a question to

the concerned workman on the writ petition which he had filed before the Hon‘ble High Court challenging the action

of the management for not giving him promotion though qualified in the departmental test. He has stated that the writ

petition was dismissed as Hon‘ble High Court directed him to agitate his grievances before the proper forum.

However, M.W. 1 in her evidence in chief on affidavit has categorically stated Employees who re-join the

services of the Corporation after release from Emergency Commission/ Short Service/ Regular Commission in the

Armed Forces of the Indian Union will be eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre/s if they satisfy the

conditions of eligibility as to service in the cadre and have put in at least one completed year of service after re-

joining as on the date of notification for consideration of promotion, they will be exempted from all departmental

tests. Further, the service put in by them in the Armed Forces will be counted as service in the cadre in which they

were working prior to their release for Defence Service. Notwithstanding the provision of Rules 6(2) of the Promotion

Rules, names of all the employees belonging to these categories who are eligible for promotion as stated above shall

be included in the selection panel and they will be interviewed by the Promotion Committee.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Promotion Rules, names of all the Scheduled Castes/

Scheduled Tribes employees who satisfy the conditions of eligibility for promotion shall be included in the

selection panel. The Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes candidates on the selection panel shall be grouped

separately from those not belonging to SC/ST and they will be interviewed on a separate day either at the

beginning or at the end of the programme for interview. She has further stated that the writ petition filed by the

concerned workman was dismissed for non-prosecution. During cross examination she has stated that all the

criteria are considered for preparing the panel of eligible candidates to be called for interview for promotion,

seniority, qualification and work record in the form of confidential reports. Maximum 15 marks are given for

qualification. Graduate candidates are given maximum 5 marks. In the matter of seniority 1 mark is given for

every completed year of service subject to maximum 20 marks. Maximum 25 marks are given for confidential

report. There is no fixed marks for calling any person before the interview board. But her such evidence stands

discredited by The Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and Class IV employees (Promotion) Rules,

1987 already mentioned above. Thus, this Tribunal finds her evidence not worthy of credence.

In view of above discussion prima facie it appears that the management of LICI for the reasons best known

to it and by adopting an unfair labour practice has deprived the concerned workman the promotion to which he was

legally entitled despite having qualified in the promotional departmental test held in the year 1997.

Therefore, this Tribunal holds that LICI is not justified in not giving promotion to Sri Amar Kumar Dey,

Typist though having qualified for the same in the year 1997. Thus, the concerned workman is entitled to get all the

promotional financial benefits to which he is entitled to as HIG (Administration) from the date he qualified the

promotional test or departmental test by virtue of result declared on 09-09-1997 (Exhibit-W-12). The Management of

LICI is hereby directed to give all financial benefits to the concerned workman Sri Amar Kumar Dey from

September, 1997 in the scale of HGA (Administration) till his superannuation either in the year 2016, if the age of

superannuation is 58 years or in the year 2018 if the age of superannuation is 60 years and to fix all his pensionary

benefits in the revised scale within two months of publication of award.

Accordingly, the Reference Case No.06 of 2011 is disposed of holding the action of the management of LICI for

not promoting Sri Amar Kumar Dey, a Typist since 1997 to be illegal and not justified.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

613

ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/2/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 292.—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. 06/2019) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/2/2019 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 06 OF 2019

PARTIES: Haradhan Bouri

Vs.

Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. N. Ganguly, Adv.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

25.09.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/2/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 10.01.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery, Jhanjra Area of M/s. ECL in dismissing

Shri Haradhan Bouri vide order No. GM/JNR/PER/2012/497 dated 04/16-07-2012 is legal or justified? If

not, to what relief the workman Shri Haradhan Bouri, Ex-Tyndal is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/2/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 10.01.2019 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 06 of 2019 was registered on

614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28.01.2019 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery under Jhanjra Area of

Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Case is fixed up today for evidence of workman witness. On repeated calls at

12.25 pm, none appeared for Haradhan Bouri, Ex-Tyndal working under Eastern Coalfields Limited.

After registration of this case on 28.01.2019, Notice was issued to both parties. On 11.10.2022 Haradhan

Bouri appeared for the first time and filed written statement. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate filed a written statement

along with Vokalatnama on the next date. The case was fixed up for evidence on 03.03.2023 and 15.05.2023 but none

appeared for the workman. In compliance with order dated 15.05.2023, Notice under registered post was issued to

Haradhan Bouri at his residence but he failed to appear without seeking any accommodation.

The workman in his written statement stated that he went on leave in 2011 but due to illness he could not

join his duty and informed the management about his inability to join due to illness. Without issuance of any Charge

Sheet, Notice of enquiry and Second Show Cause Notice, the workman received a verbal intimation that he had been

dismissed from the service and a letter dated 4/16.07.2012 was issued in his name. The workman has prayed for

reinstatement in service after setting aside the order of dismissal.

The case has been contested by the management by filing written statement. It has been submitted therein

that Charge Sheet was issued to workman for his unauthorized absence. The reply to the Charge Sheet was not found

satisfactory and a proceeding was initiated. The charge framed was substantiated against workman and a second

Show Cause Notice dated 02.01.2012 was sent to the workman enclosing enquiry report. The reply to the Second

Show Cause notice was not found satisfactory as the workman had performed duty for nine days in 2009, one day in

2010 and four days in 2011. It has been asserted that punishment imposed against the workman is totally justified.

The workman did not appear after filing written though subsequent Notice was served upon him.

Opportunity was given to the dismissed workman to contest the case but he is not eager to turn up. Under such

circumstances, the Industrial Dispute is decided against the workman in form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/39/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 293.—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. 18/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/39/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

615

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. 18 OF 2018

PARTIES: Lakshmi Narayan Bouri

Vs.

Management of Gourandi Begunia Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

29.09.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/39/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 04.07.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Gourandi Begunia Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Gourandi Begunia

Colliery under Salanpur Area in imposing the punishment of dismissal on Shri Laxminarayan Bouri, U G

Loader vide order No. SLN/C-6/36/P-900 dated 11.07.2009 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/39/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 04.07.2018 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 18 of 2018 was registered on

10.07.2018 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

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

After issuance of Notice to Lakshmi Narayan Bouri, the dismissed workman filed written statement on

23.11.2022. The case of the aggrieved workman is that he was a permanent employee of Gourandi Begunia Colliery

under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) bearing U.M. No. 221392. Due to

his illness he could not attend his work from 09.10.2007. After recovery when Lakshmi Narayan Bouri, the workman,

reported for his duty the management of the colliery did not permit him to join and issued Charge Sheet bearing No.

G.B/C-6/C5/08/820 dated 02.06.2008. The workman replied to the Charge Sheet, explaining the circumstance under

which he was unable to perform his duty but an Enquiry Proceeding was initiated and he was dismissed form service

of the company vide Letter of Dismissal issued on 11.07.2009. The workman contended that the Enquiry Officer did

not provide him reasonable opportunity to take the assistance of co-worker, thereby natural justice was denied. It is

his case that a stereotype enquiry was held and the report was submitted by filling up blanks in a pre-typed report

signed by the employee and the management representative. The workman contended that the punishment of

dismissal imposed against him was harsh and disproportionate to the nature of charge. It is urged that the workman

submitted a Mercy Petition consistent with the scope of a Memorandum of Settlement singed by ECL before the

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on 22.05.2007, in which the management agreed to consider the

mercy appeal of the employees who absented for a period up to nine months and are within the age of forty-five years.

The workman further contended that in response to his mercy appeal the General Manager (P&IR) called him to

appear with his family members and he was asked to submit an undertaking that he would be regular in attending his

duty in future, but till date he has not been allowed to join his duty.

The workman thereafter raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Asansol where the management agreed to consider his prayer for reinstatement on the basis of the Memorandum of

Settlement but ultimately the prayer was not allowed. The dismissed workman contended that he is out of

616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employment since October 2007, having no source of income to maintain his family. The workman therefore, prayed

for his reinstatement in service with back wages and other consequential benefits.

The management of Gourandi Begunia Colliery under Salanpur Area of ECL filed their written statement on

23.11.2022 refuting the claim of the workman on the ground that Lakshmi Narayan Bouri absented from his duty

from 09.10.2007 without any intimation and he is also a habitual absentee. His attendance in the year 2005 was 79

days, in the year 2006 he attended duty for 35 days and in the yar 2007 for 112 days. The workman was charge

sheeted for his misconduct under Section 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the workmen

of the company. The workman failed to submit any satisfactory report to the Charge Sheet for which a Domestic

Enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer after issuance of Notice. The workman participated in the Enquiry

Proceeding, availing reasonable opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The charge of misconduct was proved against the workman followed by issuance of the Second Show Cause Notice

by the Disciplinary Authority and the workman was dismissed by order dated 11.07.2009. It is claimed that the order

of dismissal of the workman was justified and the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to his misconduct.

Management contended that the fairness of enquiry is to be adjudicated as preliminary issue and if it is found the that

the enquiry was unfair then the management should be given an opportunity to prove the said charges before the

Tribunal by adducing evidence or independent proof thereof. The management on such contention urged that the

dismissed workman is not entitled to get any relief in this Industrial Dispute.

The dismissed workman filed an affidavit-in-chief and adduced evidence as workman witness – 1. He

produced the following documents in support of his case:

(i) Photocopy of the Letter of Dismissal dated 11.07.2009 is marked as Exhibit W-1.

(ii) Photocopy of the Mercy Petition for reinstatement, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii) Photocopy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 08.07.2013, whereby the case for reinstatement of

Lakshmi Narayan Bouri was forwarded to headquarters for consideration and to report before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol within thirty days from the date of settlement is produced as

Exhibit W-3.

(iv) Photocopy of the letter dated 26/27.05.2014 issued by the Sr. Officer, Gourandi Begunia Colliery asking the

dismissed workman to appear before the General Manager (P&IR), ECL on 29.05.2014 for personal hearing

along with his family members for disposal of the appeal, as Exhibit W-4.

(v) Photocopy of the letter dated 22.01.2015 requesting the dismissed workman not to resort to any agitational

programme, as Exhibit W-5.

In course of his cross-examination the workman stated that he cannot produce documents relating to his medical

treatment during the period of his absence. He further deposed that he will examine Dr. Josh of Domohani Colliery

from whom he received medical treatment.

Mr. Devendra Kumar, Senior Officer (Personnel) of Gourandi Begunia Group of Mines filed an affidavit-in-

chief and was examined as Management Witness – 1. It has been stated in the affidavit-in-chief that the workman is a

habitual absentee. He was chargesheeted for his misconduct under different sections of Certified Standing Orders

applicable to the company. The witness disclosed that he workman participated in the Enquiry Proceeding and

reasonable opportunity was given to him. The witness deposed that a Second Show Cause Notice was issued by the

Disciplinary Authority and by order dated 11.07.2009 the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from

service. In course of evidence MW– 1 produced the following documents :

(i) Photocopy of the Second Charge Sheet is marked as Exhibit M-1.

(ii) Photocopy of the Reply to the Second Charge Sheet, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii) Photocopy of the letter of appointment of Mr. Samir Kr. Sinha, as the Enquiry Officer as Exhibit M-3.

(iv) Photocopy of the Notice of enquiry sent to the workman, as Exhibit M-4 and M-5.

(v) Photocopy of the document relating to the Enquiry Proceeding, as Exhibit M-6.

(vi) Photocopy of the Inquiry Report with findings dated 25.11.2008, as Exhibit M-7.

(vii) Photocopy of the Second Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2008/12.01.2009, as Exhibit M-8.

(viii) Photocopy of the Reply to the Second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit M-9.

(ix) Photocopy of the Letter of Dismissal dated 11.07.2009 issued by the General Manager of Salanpur Area of

ECL, as Exhibit M-10.

In course of cross-examination the witness admitted that the Enquiry Proceeding was prepared on a pre-typed format,

which must have been a prevailing practice at the relevant time. A copy of Mercy Petition seeking reinstatement and a

copy of the letter dated 22.01.2015 issued by Senior Manager (P)/IR, have been produced by the workman as Exhibit

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

617

W-2 and W-5. The witness admitted that he has no document to show that proposal for reinstatement was dismissed

by the headquarters of ECL.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative for the workman argued that the management of the company has

dismissed Lakshmi Narayan Bouri for his absence from duty only for a period of seven months and twenty-five days

which was due to illness. It is argued that the punishment imposed against the workman is disproportionate,

improper and liable to be set aside by reinstatement of the workman and payment of back wages. It is further argued

that the Enquiry Proceeding was held mechanically and the report in two pages was prepared on a pre-typed format

without application of mind.

In reply Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the Charge Sheet was

issued against the workman for his misconduct under Section 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders

applicable to the company. In the said Charge Sheet (Exhibit M-1) it was specified that the workman had performed

79 days of work in the year 2005, 35 days of work in the year 2006 and 112 days in the year 2007. The workman

submitted his reply against the Charge Sheet disclosing that due to his illness of ―nervous breakdown‖ from

12.10.2007 to 27.11.2008 it was not possible for him to attend duty from and that Notice of enquiry were issued to

him on 05.08.2008 and 13.11.2008 but due to illness he was unable to attend before the Enquiry Officer.

The moot question before this Tribunal is whether the order of dismissal issued against Lakshmi Narayan

Bouri from service is just and legal and what relief is the workman entitled to?

10.

On a perusal of Exhibit M-1 and M-2 I find that the workman responded to the Charge Sheet and stated that

he has submitting medical prescription as evidence of his illness and also fitness Certificate for resuming his duty

from 28.11.2008. Notice of the enquiry have been produced as Exhibit M-4 and M-5. The workman participated in

the enquiry and the copy of Enquiry Proceeding has been produced as Exhibit M-6 and the findings as Exhibit M-7.

The Enquiry Officer recorded statement of Mr. N. D. Maji, the management representative. There is no indication in

the Enquiry Proceeding if the workman was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Similarly, Lakshmi

Narayan Bouri, the delinquent workman was examined and he stated that he was suffering from mental agony and

prayed for apology for his misconduct. The Enquiry Proceeding appears to me to be irregular in nature as it has been

prepared on some pre-typed format, without recording the statement of the witness in verbatim. No opportunity of

cross-examination appears to have been given to the workman. Even the report of Enquiry Officer was pre-typed with

provision to fill up the Names of employee, number of Charge Sheet, period of absence from duty without

information and so forth. It is also stated that Lakshmi Narayan Bouri produced a medical certificate of his mental

disorder. The management had issued a Second Show Cause Notice to the workman on 30.12.2008 / 12.01.2009

stating that number of days of his attendance in the year 2005 to 2007 and that he was a habitual absentee and liable

for major penalty leading to dismissal from service. I find from the evidence on record that in the past due to his poor

attendance there have been stoppage of increments / SPRA. The copy of Second Show Cause Notice has been

produced as Exhibit M-8. The workman admitted receipt of the Second Show Cause Notice by way of submitting

reply to the same, which has been marked as Exhibit M-9. The workman stated in his reply to the Second Show Cause

Notice that he was suffering from mental illness and was under treatment for which he submitted medical treatment

papers. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the General Manager, Salanpur Area, ECL after having assessed the Enquiry

Report and other report submitted by the Enquiry Officer held that the findings of Enquiry Officer in respect of

charge levelled against the was proved beyond doubt and due to the misconduct and charges he awarded Lakshmi

Narayan Bouri the punishment of dismissal from service of the company with immediate effect and was directed to

collect all legal dues from the office.

11.

From the documents produced, the Notice of enquiry (Exhibit M-4 and M-5) it is clear that full opportunity

was given to the workman for producing and examining his witnesses and to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses

i.e. management representative. In the instant case there was no cross-examination of the witness. However, it cannot

be said that the opportunity was denied to the workman for defending himself with the help of co-worker. In Exhibit

M-9, the reply submitted against the Second Show Cause Notice the workman did not raise any objection that

Enquiry Proceeding was vitiated for breach of natural justice. Therefore, the contention of the workman that he was

not provided with reasonable opportunity in the Enquiry Proceeding is not tenable. It appears from the evidence on

record that at all stage of Enquiry Proceeding the workman had participated and had full knowledge of the charge

levelled against him. He has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation as to why he had remained absent for such

a long period from duty without any prior intimation.

12.

having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence adduced by the parties and the argument

advanced, I hold that there was no illegality on the part of the management in dismissing the workman from service

for his long unauthorized absence without cogent reason. Consequently, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The

Industrial Dispute is accordingly dismissed against the workman on contest.

Hence,

618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDERED

that the dismissal of Lakshmi Narayan Bouri, ex-employee of Gourandi Begunia Colliery under Salanpur

Area of ECL w.e.f. 11.07.2009 suffers from no illegality and he is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement and back

wages. The Industrial Dispute is dismissed against the workman on contest. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my

above findings. 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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/84/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 294.—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. 36/2019) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/84/2019 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 36 OF 2019

PARTIES: 1. Md. Zahir Khan and

2. Sk. Mohibul Rahaman

Vs.

Management of Shankrapur Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen:

Sk. Mohibul Rahaman (in person).

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.09.2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

619

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-22012/84/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 13.11.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Shankarpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in not

regularizing Md. Zahir Khan & Sk. Mohibul Rahaman, SDL Helper in the post of Fitter Helper is justified or

not. If not, what relief these two workmen are entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/84/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 13.11.2019 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 36 of 2019 was registered on

19.11.2019 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

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

Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up

today for ex-parte hearing against Md. Zahir Khan and Sk. Mohibul Rahaman for absence after Notice.

Sk. Mohibul Rahaman, one of the aggrieved workmen has appeared in person and filed an application signed

by the General Secretary, Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union on letter head of the union enclosing office order dated

24/25.04.2023. Copy of application is served upon Eastern Coalfields Limited. No objection is raised.

After issuing Notice under registered post, Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate filed written

statement on 07.02.2023. No written statement is filed by the union. However, on 12.05.2023 an application enclosing

an office order was submitted by the union stating that the aggrieved workmen have been selected to the post of Fitter

Helper, Category-II and the Industrial Dispute may be disposed of. It appears from the office order that the both

aggrieved persons demanding regularization as Fitter Helper have been selected for such post. They have no

grievance against the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited now. 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. 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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/110/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 295.—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. 62/2022) 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 04/01/2024.

[ [No. L-22012/110/2022 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 62 OF 2022

PARTIES: Sankha Ranjan Dhar

Vs.

Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 & 2 Incline of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

None.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.09.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/110/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 22.12.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 & 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery 1 & 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area, M/s. E. C.

Ltd. in not fixation the pay properly in the regularized post of Mining Sirdar -cum- Shot Firer to Sri Sankha

Ranjan Dhar is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/110/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 22.12.2022 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 62 of 2022 was registered on

26.12.2022 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. On repeated calls at 1.15 pm,

Sankha Ranjan Dhar, aggrieved workman is not found present despite issuance of Notice at his permanent address at

Vill- Katwa, Baro Bazar, Po- Katwa, PS- Katwa, Dist- Purba Bardhaman. The General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor

Congress (HMS) is a noticee in this case and he has failed to appear.

After providing sufficient opportunities to the workman, he has not come forward to pursue his case. Under

such circumstance, the Industrial Dispute referred for adjudication is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. 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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

621

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/03/2023-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 296.—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. 06/2023) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/03/2023 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 06 OF 2023

PARTIES: Kumari Kabutiri Prasad

Vs.

Management of J. K. Nagar Group (R) Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

25.09.2023

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/03/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 12.01.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of J. K. Nagar Group (R) Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman

for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vide letter No. ECL/CMD/C-

6B/EMPL/WD/5323/15/96 dated 21/03/2015 (copy enclosed) in denying for providing employment on

compassionate ground under the provisions of NCWA to Kumari Kabutiri Prasad, who had submitted the

claim for employment vide letter dated 21/09/1999 (copy enclosed), the dependent daughter of late Shri

Ganesh Prasad, Ex-Stone Cutter, who expired on 05/02/1999 while in service, is fair, legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the dependent of the deceased workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in

this respect? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/03/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 12.01.2023 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 06 of 2023 was registered on

20.01.2023 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and

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

622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative conducting this case on behalf of Kumari Kabutiri Prasad, who had

claimed employment as a dependent daughter of late Ganesh Prasad, has filed a copy of Death Certificate of Kabutiri

Prasad, daughter of late Ganesh Prasad and filed a separate petition for accepting the Death Certificate of Kabutiri

Prasad for passing appropriate order. Copy served upon Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields

Limited.

After appearance in this case a written statement was filed by the management on 30.05.2023. No written

statement was filed on behalf of petitioner/claimant. Since Kumari Kabutiri Prasad, the daughter of the ex-employee

has expired, the claim for employment of dependent fails. 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. 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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

]असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/46/93-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 297.—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. 26/1993) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/46/93 – 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. 26 OF 1993

PARTIES: Nabin Majhi

Vs.

Management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

None.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

22.12.2023.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

623

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-22012/46/93-IR(C.II) dated 07.06.1993 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication

by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of M/s. E.C.Ltd., in dismissing Shri Nabin

Majhi, General Mazdoor w.e.f. 28.10.88 from the services vide charge sheet No. AGT/KPH/67/1164 dated

17.7.87 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/46/93-IR(C.II) dated 07.06.1993 from the Government of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 26 of 1993 was registered on 14.06.1993

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

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up today for

appearance of aggrieved workman, Nabin Majhi and hearing of argument. On repeated calls at 1.10 pm, none

appeared for Nabin Majhi.

On the basis of order received from the Ministry of Labour, this case was registered on 14.06.1993. Both

parties were represented by their learned advocates. Union filed written statement on 16.11.1993 on behalf of

workman through Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative. Management filed written statement on 17.12.1993. On

02.07.1997 management filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the workman. Case was fixed up for evidence

of parties. On 03.11.2009 Mr. P. K. Das as well as Mr. S. K. Pandey submitted that they would not adduce evidence

and would like to produce written argument. Since no step has been taken by the workman on consecutive dates and

Mr. Das on 06.06.2018 submitted that workman has expired, I do not find necessity in proceeding further with this

case. Legal representative of the workman did not come forward seeking substitution. Under such circumstances,

Industrial Dispute is dismissed for default.

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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/62/2021-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 298.—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. 27/2021) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/62/2021 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 27 OF 2021

PARTIES: Bidhan Bouri

Vs.

Management of Nabakajora Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. M.K. Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

30.11.2023

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-22012/62/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 10.12.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Nabakajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Nabakajora Colliery, Kajora Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. in non-

reinstatement in service of Sri Bidhan Bouri, Ex- General Mazdoor (U.G) is justified or not? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to.”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/62/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 10.12.2021 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 27 of 2021 was registered on

10.12.2021/01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing

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

of witnesses.

Mr. Niren Chandra Das, President of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Asansol appeared on 03.08.2022 and

submitted written statement on behalf of the dismissed workman. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the

management of ECL filed written statement for ECL on 13.09.2022. The fact of the case as disclosed in the written

statement of the union is that Bidhan Bouri was a permanent employee of Nabakajora Colliery under Kajora Area of

ECL and posted as General Mazdoor bearing U.M. No : 187972. A Charge Sheet dated 15.12.2015 was issued to him

on the allegation of his unauthorized absence from duty from 27.10.2015 to 14.12.2015 for a period of one month and

seventeen days only. The workman is a member of Scheduled Caste community having no formal education. He

submitted an explanation against the Charge Sheet but the management without considering the same initiated a

departmental enquiry against him. Bidhan Bouri participated in the enquiry proceeding but he was not allowed any

opportunity to have the assistance of any co-worker. The workman was held guilty of the charge and a second Show

Cause notice was issued to him on 14.03.2016. On the basis of a biased and faulty enquiry, the workman was

removed from his service by an order dated 31.03.2016 issued by the Agent, Nabakajora Colliery which was

communicated to the workman by letter no. ECL/NKC/AM(HR/P)/16/255 dated 04.04.2016.

The dismissed workman submitted an application addressed to the Director (Personnel), ECL Head Quarter

praying for his reinstatement in service but the prayer was not considered. Further case of the aggrieved workman is

that his date of birth is 22.10.1977 and he was within 45 years of age and his period of absence was less than nine

months. As such, his case was required to be considered under Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007, which

provided for an opportunity of reinstatement to the workman whose period of absence was less than nine months and

age was within 45 years. It has been contended that the Enquiry Officer was predetermined to hold the workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

625

guilty and the workman did not understand the proceeding which was recorded in English. Thereby, the principles of

natural justice was violated. In support of the case of the workman, the union has relied upon a decision of the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, wherein it

was observed that : “Absence from duty without any application or prior information may amount to unauthorized

absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may

abstain from work like illness, accident, hospitalization etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of

failure of devotion to duty or a behavior unbecoming of a government servant. In a departmental proceeding, if

allegation of unauthorized absence is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful.

In absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.”

The workman took a plea that he was suffering from some family problems at the relevant time and his

absence was not willful. Accordingly, it is urged that the order of termination is bad in law and the same is liable to be

set aside.

The management filed a written statement contending therein that Bidhan Bouri was appointed on

15.11.2006 as a General Mazdoor at Nabakajora Colliery is a habitual absentee. For various reasons he was

reprimanded several times for his absence from duty but he maintained the same conduct and remained absent

without any authorised leave or information to the Appropriate Authority. A Charge Sheet was issued against the

workman dated 15.12.2015 under clause 26.23 and 26.39 of the Certified Standing Order for habitual late attendance

and habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and absence from duty beyond ten days without sanctioned

leave or leave without valid reasons. The matter was referred for domestic enquiry. The charge was proved against the

workman beyond doubt and on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the General Manager, Kajora Area vide

letter No. KA/APM/C-6/Dismissal/10/1306 dated 31.03.2016, dismissed the workman. Further case of the

management is that in the past few years the attendance of the workman was very meagre. Management contended

that absenteeism is a serious offence which hampers work of the Employer and the production process. Referring to

the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it is pointed out that habitual absenteeism means gross violation of discipline

and that it establishes lack of interest in work. Referring to previous conduct of the workman, the management

pointed out that his one increment was stopped on 02.08.2008, two increments were stopped with final warning on

01.04.2009, one increment was stopped on 31.07.2009, two increments were stopped on 19.05.2010. He was also

demoted from Category II to Category I on 05.09.2011. Thereafter, one increment was stopped on 01.06.2012 and

three increments were stopped on 05.10.2014 with cumulative effect. The attendance and past record of the workman

reveals that he is not interested in his job and there is no reason to misplace sympathy on the workman. Management

claimed that the Industrial Dispute raised at the instance of the workman has no merit and the workman does not

deserve to be reinstated.

In support of the case of the workman, Bidhan Bouri was examined as WW-1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief

wherein he averred that management did not allow him the assistance of co-workers during enquiry and his

explanation against the Charge Sheet was not considered. It is further stated that Enquiry Proceeding conducted by

Enquiry Officer was biased and he submitted his report arbitrarily and a second Show Cause notice was issued on

14.03.2016. After submitting his explanation of the second Show Cause notice, he was dismissed from service on

31.03.2016. The workman produced the following documents in support of his case :

(i) A copy of his letter of appointment is marked as Exhibit W-1.

(ii) Copies of Identity Card, as Exhibit W-1/1.

(iii) Copy of Charge Sheet dated 15.12.2015, as Exhibit W-1/2.

(iv) Notice dated 11.03.2016 for holding domestic enquiry on 11.03.2016 is produced as Exhibit W-1/3.

(v) A copy of Enquiry Proceeding with finding in three pages is produced as Exhibit W-1/4.

(vi) Application of Bidhan Bouri praying for his reinstatement, as Exhibit W-1/5.

(vii) Copy of Aadhar Card of Bidhan Bouri, as Exhibit W-1/6

In course of cross-examination by management, the witness admitted that he did not submit any application for his

absence from duty from 27.10.2015 to 14.12.2015. He did not produce any document to show that he was suffering

from any illness during his absence nor did he raise any objection before the Enquiry Officer that he was not given

assistance of co-workers in Enquiry Proceeding. It is specifically admitted by the witness that opportunity was given

to him by the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his reply to the second Show Cause notice. The management

suggested to witness that he was not entitled to be reinstated in service which was denied by the workman.

The management of ECL examined Ramjee Tripathi, Assistant Manager (Personnel) as MW-1. In course of

his evidence, the management produced the following documents for consideration :

(i) A copy of Charge Sheet dated 15.12.2015, as Exhibit M-1.

626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) Copy of Office Order dated 06.03.2016 appointing Miss Moumita Joardar as Enquiry Officer for holding the

domestic enquiry is produced as Exhibit M- 2.

(iii) Notice of Domestic Enquiry dated 08.03.2016 is produced as Exhibit M- 3.

(iv) Copy of Enquiry proceeding collectively in three pages is produced as Exhibit M- 4.

(v) Copy of second Show Cause notice issued by the Agent dated 14.03.2016 is produced as Exhibit M- 5.

(vi) A reply to the second Show Cause notice submitted by Bidhan Bouri is produced as Exhibit M-6.

(vii) Office Order related to dismissal of Bidhan Bouri issued by the Agent, Nabakajora Colli04.04.2016 is

marked as Exhibit M-7.

In course of cross-examination, the management witness deposed that the workman did not submit any reply

to the Charge Sheet. The management admitted that it cannot produce any document to show that the Enquiry Officer

submitted the Enquiry Proceeding to the Agent of Nabakajora Colliery. It is also admitted by the management witness

that the Office Order of dismissal was signed by the Agent on approval of the General Manager but he was unable to

produce any document to show that it was approved by the General Manager. In reply to a suggestion that order of

dismissal was not approved by the General Manager, the witness answered in the negative.

Mr. M.K. Badyopadhyay, learned advocate for the workman advanced an argument that Enquiry Officer

violation of natural justice in holding Enquiry Proceeding. Referring to the report of Enquiry Officer (Exhibit M-4

and Ext W-1/4) it is argued that the Enquiry Proceeding was a table work and the document is not reliable. Learned

advocate drew my attention to the fact that according to notice of enquiry, the Enquiry Proceeding was to be held on

11.03.2016 which has also been stated in the Enquiry Report but signature of Mr. P.K. Nandi, Management

Representative and Ms. Moumita Joardar, Enquiry Officer appears to have been obtained on the Enquiry Report on

09.03.2016. Therefore, no enquiry was held on 11.03.206 as claimed by the management. Learned advocate for the

workman further argued that the workman could not perform his duty from 27.10.2015 due to his illness and mental

ailment but the short period of his absence was not condoned and the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of the

charge which was arbitrary in nature. It is argued that there is no document to show that the report of Enquiry Officer

was submitted before the Agent for consideration of the competent authority or that considering the Enquiry Report,

the General Manager approved the dismissal of the workman. Learned advocate vehemently argued that Agent is not

the appropriate authority to dismiss a workman. Therefore, the order of dismissal is bad in law and the workman

should be reinstated in service.

10.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the workman is a habitual absentee

without reason. Charge is levelled against him under clause 26.23 and 26.39 of the Certified Standing Order. The

workman received the Charge Sheet but did not submit any reply. Enquiry Proceeding was held by the Enquiry

Officer and reasonable opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. The management representative

relied upon the past attendance record of Bidhan Bouri to establish that he attended duty for 10 days in 2013, 24 days

in 2014 and 89 days in 2015 for which he had been punished on earlier occasions. Learned advocate drew my

attention to the Enquiry Report where it is noted that reason for his absence was ―family problem‖ and that as he was

residing in Dakhinkhanda village, which was far away from his workplace and he faced problem in attending his duty.

In respect of the order of dismissal, learned advocate for management submitted that second Show Cause notice was

served upon the workman to which he submitted his reply but management considering all aspect and past record of

the workman dismissed him from service with the approval of General Manager. Mr. Das fairly submitted that he is

unable to show any document that the General Manager, Kajora Area had approved the decision of dismissal of the

workman. Regarding the claim of reinstatement, it is argued that the application was made at a belated stage, more

than three years after his dismissal and the same cannot be considered.

11.

I have considered the fact and circumstances of this case and arguments advanced in the light of the evidence

adduced on behalf of the workman and the management witness including the documents admitted in their favour. It

is undisputed that the concerned workman had absented from his duty several times on previous occasions and lastly

from 27.10.2015 till issuance of Charge Sheet on 15.12.2015 (Exhibit W-1/2). The charge levelled against him is

under clause 26.23 and 26.39 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the company which is related to habitual

late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and absence from duty beyond ten days without

sanctioned leave or leave without valid reasons. Before dismissal of the workman, notice of enquiry was issued to him

which is produced as Exhibit W-1/3 and Exhibit M-3. The workman admittedly participated in the Enquiry

Proceeding on 11.03.2016. Bidhan Bouri, the charged workman, Mr. P.K. Nandi, the Management Representative and

Miss M. Joardar, the Enquiry Officer appears to have put their signature on the report of the Enquiry Proceeding held

on 11.03.2016 but their signatures are dated ―09.03.2016‖. It is nobody‘s case that the Enquiry Proceeding was

preponed to 09.03.2016 nor did the workman raise any objection that no enquiry was held at all. Under such

circumstances, the dates appearing below the signatures of the said persons indicate that such signatures were

obtained at some other time on a different date and certainly not on 11.03.2016. No suitable explanation has been

submitted by the management of ECL to clarify the anomaly apparent.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

627

12.

In his evidence-in-chief, the workman witness stated that he was absent from his duty as he was suffering

from illness but he was unable to produce any document in support of his claim. It transpires from the Enquiry Report

and written statement that due to some family problem the workman did not attend his duty and furthermore he was

confronted with problems in attending duty as his place of residence was far away from his workplace. There is

nothing on record to establish that absence of workman from duty was due to his illness or that his absence from duty

was not willful. After completion of the Enquiry Proceeding, a second Show Cause notice was issued by the Agent

dated 14.03.2016 (produced as Exhibit M-5). The undated reply submitted by Bidhan Bouri against second Show

Cause notice (Exhibit M-6) disclose that he was mentally unwell. The workman admitted that he was on unauthorized

leave. On considering such factors, the Agent, Nabakajora Colliery issued a letter dismissing Bidhan Bouri from

service w.e.f. 31.03.2016 (Exhibit M-7). The management failed to produce any evidence to indicate that such order

of dismissal had the approval or the concurrence of the General Manager, Kajora Area. In another Office Order

bearing no. KA:APM:C-6:Dismissal:10:1306 dated 31.03.2016, the Area Personnel Manager has also stated that

Bidhan Bouri was being removed from service of Eastern Coalfields Limited w.e.f. 31.03.2016 and it had the

approval of the General Manager, Kajora Area. However, the management has failed to show that competent

authority had any opportunity to consider the Enquiry Report, Enquiry Proceeding, findings of the Enquiry Officer or

the reply submitted by the charged employee against the second Show Cause notice. In a case where a grave penalty

of dismissal is passed against a workman, it cannot lightly be presumed that the competent authority has approved the

dismissal without such evidence being placed. From the attending fats, circumstances and evidence on record it

appears to me that the management has violated the mandate of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

Vs. Md Ramzan Khan (AIR 1991 SC 471), wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India laid down the laws as

follows :

“When the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has the right to receive the

copy of Enquiry Report of Enquiry Officer before Disciplinary Authority arrives at it’s conclusion with regards to the

charges levelled against him. A denial of Enquiry Officer report before the Disciplinary Authority takes his decision

on charges is denial of opportunity for the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of principles of natural

justice”.

13.

In the instant case, there is no iota of evidence that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the General Manager of

Kajora Area had any occasion to actually consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the reply submitted by the

charged employee against the second Show Cause notice. The Management was provided several opportunity to

produce the approval of the General Manager but did not discharge the onus of proof. They failed to submit any

satisfactory explanation as to how the Enquiry Officer and Management Representative had put their signature on the

Enquiry Report on ―09.03.2016‖ when the proceeding was said to have been held on ―11.03.2016‖. It appears to me

that the Enquiry Proceeding has been held in a slipshod manner and even the statement of the charged employee was

not recorded. Due to such discrepancy, I am unable to place reliance upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding

the charged employee guilty. Accordingly, the dismissal of the workman on such faulty enquiry is not sustainable and

his dismissal from service is set aside.

14.

Considering all these aspects and in view of the provision under Section 11-A of I.D. Act, I hold that the

order of dismissal of the workman issued by the Agent, Nabakajora Colliery in his Office Order dater 31.03.2016,

communicated under memo dated 04.04.2016 is arbitrarily, illegal and not tenable under the law. The same is

accordingly set aside. The management is directed to reinstate Bidhan Bouri in service within thirty days from the

date of notification of this Award. In view of facts and circumstances and the contradictory statements made by the

workman as the reasons for his absence, I am not inclined to grant any benefit of back wages to the workman.

Accordingly, workman shall not receive any back wages for the period of his absence. The period of his absence from

duty shall be treated as dies-non.

Hence,

ORDERED

the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of the workman. The order of dismissal issued by the

Agent, Nabakajora Colliery dated 31.03.2016 and communicated under letter No. ECL/NKC/AM(HR/P)/16/255

dated 04.04.2016 is set aside. The management is directed to reinstate Bidhan Bouri in service within thirty days from

date of notification of this Award. The period of absence shall be treated as dies-non. The workman will not be

entitled to any back wages for the period of his absence. Let a copy of this Award be communicated to the Ministry

for information and Notification

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

–

सह

–

] असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 0

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-22012/120/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 299.—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. 05/2020) 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 04/01/2024.

[No. L-22012/120/2019 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2020

PARTIES: Ganesh Modi

Vs.

Management of Chinakuri Mine No. 1 of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

None Appeared.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

08.12.2023

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-22012/120/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 07.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Chinakuri Mine No. 1 under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Chinakuri Mine No.

1 under Sodepur Area in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Ganesh Modi, Ex- Loader of Chinakuri

Mine No. 1 w.e.f. 15-12-1999, as raised by Colliery Mazdoor Congress (HMS), is just and legal? If not, to

what relief the workman, Shri Ganesh Modi, is entitled to?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

629

On receiving Order No. L-22012/120/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 07.02.2020 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 05 of 2020 was registered on

24.02.2020 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The case

was fixed up on 10.11.2023 for ex-parte hearing. Mr. Sumanta Bhattacharya appeared as management witness. He

filed affidavit-in-chief in support of the management‘s case along with documents as per list. On repeated calls at 1.00

pm none appeared for Ganesh Modi, the dismissed workman.

On a perusal of the record I find that Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned advocate appeared for the workman on

18.04.2023 seeking time to file Vokalatnama on the next date to represent the workman. Since no written statement

has been filed, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing.

In their written statement, management of Eastern Coalfields Limited has disclosed that the workman

absented from duty without Notice for the period from 01.06.1999 to 13.09.1999, causing dislocation of the

company‘s work and inconvenience. A charge sheet dated 13.09.1999 under section 17(i)(w) of the company‘s

standing order was issued. Workman submitted reply to the charge sheet contending that he was admitted at Sanctoria

Hospital for his illness. A Domestic Enquiry was initiated against the workman. Notice of Enquiry was issued and the

workman participated in the enquiry proceeding. Charge of misconduct was established against the workman and he

was found guilty of charge. The Disciplinary Authority issued a letter of dismissal on 15.12.1999 in accordance with

gravity of misconduct. In support of their contentions in the written statement, management produced copy of Charge

Sheet, Letter of appointment of Enquiry Officer, Notice of Enquiry, Report of Enquiry Proceeding and findings of the

Enquiry Officer. Management further filed a letter dated 17.11.1999 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sanctoria

Hospital addressed to the Superintendent / Manager, Chinakuri Mines No. 1, disclosing that on verification it

was found that all papers of treatment of Ganesh Modi bear wrong OPD numbers which were not routed through

OPD registration counter. Note sheet dated 26.11.1999 reveals that the treatment papers of Sanctoria Hospital

submitted by the employee were found to be false and accordingly certified by the Sanctoria Hospital. Finally,

workman was dismissed from service on basis of a letter issued by the Chief General Manager, Sodepur Area dated

08/09.12.1999. In view of facts and circumstances, I hold that the workman does not have a good case to proceed.

Due to long absence after Notice, it is presumed that he is disinclined to pursue with this case. Accordingly, the

Industrial Dispute is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन हेड क्वाटडर, सजन्य क्षेत्र, ृरटयाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बजाज ेकेदार जनवासी एल.अइ.जी. 175,

ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj चरणजीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (171/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-90]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 171/2016) 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 Charanjit Kaur.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-90]

SALONI, Dy. Director

630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 171/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Charanjit Kaur W/o Sh. Gurjant Singh R/o H.No.214, Village Jahlan (Ranbirpura) Distt. Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet

Singh & Sudhakar, Resident-cum-Office 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:-12.12.2023

The workman Smt. Charanjit 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

प्रिासन. कमांडर, स्ट्टेिन हेड क्वाटडर, सजन्य क्षेत्र, ृरटयाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बजाज ेकेदार जनवासी एल.अइ.जी. 175,

ऄबडन एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरटयाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj सरबजीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 p.Mhx< ds iapkV (172/2016) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-91]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.172/2016) 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 Sarabjit Kaur.Worker.

[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-91]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

631

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 172/2016

Registered On:-11/11/2016

Sarabjit Kaur W/o Amarjeet Singh R/o Village Bhateri Kalan Distt. Patiala, C/o Sh. Harpreet Singh & Sudhakar,

Resident-cum-Office 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:-12.12.2023

The workman Smt. Sarabjit 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 full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for replication by 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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

-

सह

-

नंबर 1, चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la

-23012/17/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/02/2024.

[No. L-23012/17/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2024/MAGHA 28, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 22/2019

Registered On: 29.05.2019

Shri Brij Lal S/o Shri Gobind Ram Village Kothi, Po Ranikotla, Tehsil Sadar, Distt, Bilaspur (HP)-174001.

...........Workman

Versus

The Chairman Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

The Chief Engineer Bhakra Beas Management Board BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

........Managements

Award

Passed On: 09.01.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/17/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 14.05.2019, 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 action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demand of Shri Brij Lal S/o Shri

Gobind Ram for deeming/ considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation and

resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to and from which date?‖

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing claim statement 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.

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 the claim statement 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.

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] 9 Qjojh] 2024

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

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

-

सह

-

नंबर 1] चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

/

)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la

-23012/11/2019-vkbZ- vkj- (

.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन एन., ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2024

S.O. 303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/02/2024.

[No. L-23012/11/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 17, 2024/माघ 28, 1945

633

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.19/2019

Registered On: 29.05.2019

Shri Munshi Ram S/o Shri Kirpa Ram, Village Dehra Po Hatwar, Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur (HP)-174001.

...........Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

2. The Chief Engineer Bhakra Beas Management Board BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 09.01.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/11/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 14.05.2019, 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 action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demand of Shri Munshi Ram

S/o Shri Kirpa Ram for deeming/ considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation

and resultantly entitled for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the