2096 GI/2024

(1299)

रजिस्ट्री 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. 12]

नई ददल् ली, मार्च 24—मार्च 30, 2024, िजनवार/ र्ैत्र 4 —र्ैत्र 10, 1946

No. 12]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 24— MARCH 30, 2024, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 4– CHAITRA 10, 1946

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी िाती है जिससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूर्नाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

संस्ट् कृजत मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 579.—केंद्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ जनयम 4 के अनुसरण में संस्ट् कृजत मंत्रालय के अंतगचत आने वाले जनम् नजलजखत कायाचलयों जिनमें 80 प्रजतित से अजधक

अजधकाररयों/कमचर्ाररयों ने हहदी का कायचसाधक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया है, को अजधसूजर्त करती है :-

1. रायृुर मंडल कायाचलय, भारतीय ृुरातत् व सववेक्षण, रायृुर

2. उत्तर क्षेत्र सांस्ट् कृजतक केन् द्र, ृरियाला, ृंिाब

यह अजधसूर्ना रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से प्रवृत् त होगी

[फा. सं. ई. 13016/1/2019- हहदी]

गुरमीत हसह र्ावला, संयुक् त सजर्व

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-10042024-253637

CG-DL-W-10042024-253637

1300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CULTURE

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2024

S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Ministry of Culture wherein

more than 80% officers/staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

1. Raipur Circle Office, Archaeological Survey of India, Raipur

2. North Zone Cultural Centre, Patiala, Punjab

This notification shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. E.13016/1/2019-Hindi]

GURMEET SINGH CHAWLA, Jt. Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 580.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

इंजडयन ऑयल अडानी वेंर्सच जलजमिेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री महेन्द्रभाई एस. रािृूत के बीर् अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.- 31/2013) को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 01.03.2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/77/2012-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2024

S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2013) 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 Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited and Shri Mahendrabhai S. Rajput which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.03.2024.

[No. L-30012/77/2012-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 5^th February, 2024

Reference: (CGITA) No- 31/2013

Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited,

A-104, 1^st Floor, Godrej two,

Firoznagar, Eastern Express Highway,

Vikhroli, East,

Mumbai-400079.

….…….First Parties/Employer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1301

Shri Mahendrabhai S. Rajput (Deceased)

1/1. Smt. Geetaben Mahendrabhai Rajput (wife),

1/2. Shri Dhaval Kumar Mahendrabhai Rajput(Son) and

1/3. Rubyben Mahendrabhai Rajput (Daughter)

Vitthal Niwas,

Bindu Sarovar Road, Siddhapur,

District-Patan , Gujarat.

..….….Second Party/Workman

Adv. for the First Party

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

Adv. for the Second Party : Smt. Kashmiraben Chaudhary

AWARD

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

30012/77/2012–IR (M) dated 07.02.2013 referred the dispute for adjudication to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court at

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

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd., Palanpur in

terminating the services of Shri Rajput Mahendrabhai S. is legal and justified? What relief the applicant Shri

Rajput Mahendrabhai S. is entitled to?‖

The case was taken up today. The substitution application Ex. 8 has been moved on behalf of the legal heirs 1.

Smt. Geetaben Mahendrabhai Rajput (wife), 2. Shri Dhaval Kumar Mahendrabhai Rajput(Son) and 3. Rubeyben

Mahendrabhai Rajput (Daughter) to substitute them as legal heirs of the deceased workman Shri Rajput

Mahendrabhai S., who is said to have died on 27/08/2020. Employer has endorsed as ―No Objection‖.

Heard. Perused the copies of Death Certificate, Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card, etc. Smt. Kashmiraben

Chaudhary, Adv. has submitted the Vakalatnama for the substituted LR‘s today and requested to condone the delay.

Not opposed by the employer.

Keeping the nature of the proceedings in view substitution application Ex. 8 is allowed. The abatement, if any,

stands set side. Let the applicants LR‘s be substituted for the deceased. Let necessary amendment to this effect be

carried out in the statement of claim.

Ex. 9 has been moved on behalf of the employer informing that the name of the employer has been changed

from ―Indian Oil Tanking Infrastructure‖ to ―Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited‖.

Heard. Ld. Counsel for the substituted workman is directed to take necessary steps accordingly.

Ld. Counsel for the workman also moved an application Ex.10 to permit her to amend Statement of claim in

respect of change of nomenclature of the employer as informed by the employer‘s Ld. Counsel.

Heard. Ex.10 is allowed. Let necessary amendment/ consequential amendment be made in statement of claim in

respect of said nomenclature of the employer. Meantime employer is also directed to carry out consequential

amendment in written statement/reply, where ever applicable.

Ld. Counsel for both the parties have jointly requested that all the legal heirs of the deceased are present in the

court today and parties have settled their dispute and submitted the compromise Ex.11 and requested to disposed of

the same today itself.

Heard. Prayer allowed. Compromise Ex.11 has been filed to the effect that the legal heirs of the deceased have

agreed to receive Rs.100,000/- vide cheque No.280638 dated 31.01.2024 as full and final settlement. Legal heirs have

agreed to handover the cheque to Smt. Geetaben Mahendrabhai Rajput (wife) of deceased workman. The aforesaid

cheque is said to have been already handed over to Smt. Geetaben Mahendrabhai Rajput today. Compromise Ex.11 is

allowed.

10.

Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex.11. The settlement Ex.11 shall remain part of

the award. 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

Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

1302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 1 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 581.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमिेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री एन. बाला िौरेअह के बीर् अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-116/2006) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 01.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-29]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 1st March, 2024

S.O. 581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 116/2006) 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Shri N. Bala Shoureah which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.03.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-29]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: -Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23^rd day of February, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 116/2006

Between:

Sri N. Bala Showraiah,

S/o N. Innaiah,

R/o H.No.6-5-84, Hamalwada,

Nizamabad – 503 002.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Management of Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd., 1, Ramanatham Gardens,

11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. B. H. Ravi & G. Ramudu, Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy & V. Uma Devi, Advocates

AWARD

Sri N. Bala Showraiah, who worked as Work Operator (Field) (who will be referred to as the workman)

has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents seeking for

declaring the proceeding dated 5.11.2003 issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same

consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1303

benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this

court may deems fit.

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

It is submitted that the petitioner was an ex-military man having joined the Defence Services as Sepoy, in Madras

Regiment in year 1972, and retired as Naik on 31.7.1987. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the services of the

Respondent corporation at Nizamabad Depot as a general workman cum helper on 7.8.1989 and his duties were (i) to

go as helper in the Company Lorry for delivery of the Petroleum and other products to different out-lets of the

corporation, (i) to load and unload the petrol, diesel and kerosene tankers, under the supervision and as per the

direction of the supervisor who was present at the Gantry works spot and also to attend the sundry work as may be

assigned by superiors from time to time. It is further submitted that the post of the petitioner is the lowest in the

hierarchy of employees of the Respondent and the petitioner is only a semiliterate and a non technical person and he

was drawing a salary as a general workman and subsequently he was promoted as Work Operator (Field) and he used

to draw a salary of Rs.11, 940/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner has neither got the authority nor has any

discretion to chose the nature or the order of the way of performing duties and he has no alternative, but to discharge

his duties to the sole satisfaction of the superiors his being the lowest in the rank of employment of the Respondent

corporation at Nizamabad. It is further submitted that the petitioner was a law binding honest and sincere citizen and

he has always worked to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and worked with unblemished conduct and without

any complaint either by his colleagues or by his superiors. While So, the petitioner was shocked to have been served

with the Charge Sheet dated 11.6.1999 containing false and frivolous allegations made by the Respondent

management alleging that the petitioner has committed misconduct enumerated at clause 29.1.5. 29.1.6. 29.1.14 and

29.1.24 of the Standing orders of the company and the petitioner was kept under suspension pending Enquiry. It is

further submitted that the petitioner had obediently submitted his explanation to the Charges levelled against him to

the charge sheet served on him by the Respondent management. The Respondent management without considering

the explanation on merits had methodically ordered the petitioner to face Enquiry into the charges before the Enquiry

officer appointed by the company for the said purpose. It is further submitted that the Enquiry officer without

following any rules of natural justice had conducted the Enquiry in a most biased manner and even without affording

the petitioner any reasonable opportunity to substantiate his case, concluded the Enquiry and submitted his report to

the Respondent holding guilty of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the

report of the Enquiry officer is unsustainable in law as the findings arrived at by the Enquiry officer are perverse and

not based on the evidence available on record and the conclusions are based on misconception of both law and facts

and the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry officer are against the principles of law and no authority would come to

such arbitrary conclusions as even to the knowledge and service conditions of the Respondent the petitioner had no

choice of discharging his duties so as to give either benefit or detriment to the interest of Corporation as the petitioner

and the other workmen are under continuous supervision and surveillance of the supervisory staff and other

staff/workmen of the Respondent at Nizamabad and had conveniently forgotten the impossibility of such conduct as

averred in the charge sheet. It is further submitted that the proceedings of the Enquiry were recorded in English

inspite of the protest by the workmen on the ground that the Enquiry officer do not know Telugu and even the

workmen representative do not know Telugu and the delinquent employees including the workman do not know

English. It is further submitted that there was a strange situation prevalent all through the proceedings of the Enquiry

that all the witnesses have deposed in Telugu and neither the Enquiry officer nor the workmen representative had the

knowledge to understand what was deposed by the witnesses and even strangely though the workman knew Telugu

since doesn't know English, they were unable to understand what was reduced into writing by the Enquiry officer and

the Enquiry officer had resorted himself much on the translation of the person(Driver) chosen by him, who has no

knowledge to understand Telugu or the capacity to translate the same into English and the same person was foisted

on the delinquent in spite of objection raised by them. It is further submitted that the Respondent management without

considering the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued by the management and without applying

its mind to the facts, circumstances and the grounds of objections raised by him in relation to the findings of the

Enquiry officer, had passed a mechanical order terminating Petitioner‘s services by order dated 5.11.2003 by the

General Manager (retail), South of the Respondent Corporation. It is further submitted that the management had not

even considered the contribution rendered by the petitioner in the nature of his hard work which has also played its

own role in getting I.S.O Certificate for the Nizamabad Depot in the midst of stiff competition from the competitors

of the Respondent corporation, which is considered to be a hall mark for every industry. It is further submitted that

even assuming, but without admitting that even if the charges levelled against the petitioner are deemed to have been

proved, the punishment given to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and does not Commensurate with the

proven misconduct, hence liable to be set- aside on this ground.It is further submitted the petitioner is out of

employment since the date of termination and inspite of best efforts, he could not get any employment and is

presently continues to be without any employment and consequently exposed to both financial and stress. It is further

submitted that the termination order passed by the Respondent is unsustainable in law and amounts victimization and

unfair labour practice and the petitioner is made a scape goat for no fault of him and unnecessarily made to suffer the

hardship. The termination order is passed in utter violation of all cannons of law hence liable to be set-aside. It is

therefore prayed to set - aside the termination order dated 5.11.2003 terminating the services of the petitioner from the

1304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services of the Respondent and direct the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner into the service, with continuity of

service, attendant benefits and back wages in the interest of justice.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief

which runs as follows:

The petitioner was employed in the Respondent's depot at Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. The depot was functioning

with one Senior Operations Officer as Depot Incharge assisted by another Senior Operations Officer, a heavy vehicle

driver, a tank lorry helper, two general workmen, four security guards and two clerical staff. The depot used to receive

tank loads of MS (petrol) and HSD (Diesel) from Vizag installation on stock transfer and SKO (Kerosene) on stock

transfer from Warrangal Depot through tank lorry load by road. During the relevant period, the depot had one

Company Owned tank lorry and there were 13 other private contract vehicle operators. The private contract vehicle

operators (PCVOs) were based in Nizamabad. PCVO lorries based at Warangal and Vizag also used to bring

products to the depot. There was also a hospitality arrangement with HPC Limited by which the Respondent used to

keep the stock of HPCL with the depot and periodically release the product as per the requisition made by HPCL. At

the time of receiving the products in tank lorries, a dip measurement has to be taken under the direct supervision of

the Depot Incharge/ Sr. Operations Officer to ensure that after giving due allowance to transit loss, the quantity

covered by the document was duly received. The depot incharge is also expected to ensure that the products received

were as per the specifications. When the tank lorries carrying the goods report at the depot for delivery, based on the

time of arrival, the tank lorries should be permitted to enter the depot for delivery. As the tank lorries would be

interested in making as many number of trips in a day as possible, there is always a scramble among the tank lorries

who report at the depot in getting the clearance for delivery. In order to observe timings, there is a system by which

on arrival the tank lorry, the Depot should make an entry in the Register kept at the Security at the Gate and the

vehicles should be called for as per the entry in Register on 'first in - first out' basis. This was to ensure that no tank

lorry carrying products which reports at the depot can gain precedence over the lorries which have arrived earlier.

However, the G Gate Entry Register to register the reporting time of the tank lorry for unloading was not properly

maintained. It is not uncommon for the drivers to prevail on the operators in the Depot not to report the excess loss

as otherwise the loss by way of shortage will have to be borne by the lorry operator. Sometime in 1998, it came to

the knowledge of the Respondent that the operational functioning of depot was not upto the expected level and there

were also irregularities. An operation audit team consisting of three members was constituted and the team visited the

depot on 27.08.98 and 28.08.98. The audit committee noticed certain serious aberrations in the functioning of the

depot. The audit team submitted its report detailing the several lapses in the day to-day functioning of the depot. On

receipt of the Audit Report, an Investigation was ordered into the functioning of the said depot by a team of three

Officers comprising of the Territory Manager, Vizag, the Senior Manager Loss Control, Bombay and Territory

Manager, Mangalore. The investigation team made enquiries with all the employees of the depot and also interacted

with some of the dealers and some private vehicle operators. They also met 6 public carrier vehicle operators. It is

submitted that during investigation, many of them gave statements in writing. During course of investigation, it came

to light that the Senior Operation Officer Incharge of the Depot abdicated his functions of checking the dip, density

and temperature in tank lorries and allowed the two general workmen including the petitioner to carry out the same

and taking advantage of the situation, the Petitioner and the other workman indulged in malpractices such as

extracting money from the transport operators or their crew, with a view to make unjust enrichment and harassing

them, if their demands were not conceded, that they were coercing the transport operators to pay Rs.100/- per load of

MS and Rs.50/- per load of HSD for loading and unloading their tank lorries besides collecting Rs.500/- per month

per tank lorry for bridging, that they were demanding and collecting money from 2 dealers i.e. M/s Sri Krishna Filling

Station, Nandipet and M/s G Venkatesan, Dichpally, that on a regular basis from October 1997 to February 1998, the

product received through bridging lorries were unloaded and diverted even if the density is in excess of +/-0.003

which was the permissible limit. The Respondent initiated disciplinary action against the Senior Operations Officer,

Mr Ramakrishnan who was incharge of the depot and also against two workmen namely, the petitioner and one Prem

Singh. On 11.6.1999, the Petitioner was issued a charge sheet that he along with the other workmen had demanded

and collected from PCVOs and their crew, ranging from Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per tank lorry for each and every

handling of MS/HSD bridging tank lorries on several occasions, that he along with two other workman were

threatening the PCVOs that if the demand was not met, decanting/processing the papers of the PCVO tank lorries

would be deliberately held up, that he along with other workman was demanding and collecting Rs.500/- per tank

lorry per month from the PCVOs/their representatives for several years, that he along with other workman had

demanded and collected money from two Dealers, viz., M/s Srikrishna Filling Station, Nandipet and M/s

G.Venkatesham, Dichpalhy by way of illegal gratification, that on several occasions, he along with other workman

had colluded with Shri M.Ramakrishnan, Sr Operations Officers and Sri Premsingh in unloading and diverting Tank

Lorries carrying MS/HSD and that he indulged in similar malpractice. On 28.6.1999 the Petitioner gave a reply

denying the charges. As his explanation was not satisfactory, a common Enquiry was held against the Petitioner and

the other workman, Premsingh. In the Enquiry, the Petitioner was represented by P.S. Janardhanan, an Office Bearer

of the Union. During the Enquiry, 11 witnesses were examined in support of the charges and 35 exhibits as M1 to

M35 were marked. On behalf of the Petitioner and the other workman, 18 witnesses were examined and exhibits as

W1 to W36 were marked. In the Enquiry, the Petitioner and the other workman had fully participated and availed of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1305

the opportunity given to them to examine their witnesses and cross examine witnesses in support of the charges.

They were also furnished with the copies of the Enquiry proceedings on day today basis. The Enquiry Officers report

was sent to the Petitioner vide letter dated 23.12.2002 requesting for his comments. The Petitioner vide his letter

dated 06.02.2003 submitted his representation and comments on the Enquiry report. After considering his

representation orders were passed on 5.11.2003 dismissing the Petitioner from service. It is submitted that the

dismissal of the Petitioner is for acts of misconduct proved in the Enquiry. The said Enquiry was conducted following

the principles of natural justice. The punishment of dismissal is valid in law and fully justified. It is submitted that

though the Petitioner was employed only as an Operator, taking advantage of the laxity displayed by the Managerial

Personnel, he along with the other workmen were taking the PCVOs for a ride and were receiving illegal gratification.

In the Enquiry, abundant material had been placed to prove as to how the Petitioner and the other workmen were able

to coerce the PCVOs to part with money. It is submitted that disciplinary actions against the Petitioner and the other

employee were initiated based on the reports submitted by the Investigation Team. The Respondent satisfied itself

that representation there was a prima facie case against the Petitioner and hence, ordered an Enquiry into the charges.

It is submitted that the Enquiry proceedings were recorded in the presence of the Petitioner and the other workman as

well as the Office Bearer of the Union and after satisfying themselves about the correctness of the position, all of

them had subscribed to the Enquiry proceedings on all the days of the Enquiry. It is submitted that the representation

of the Petitioner against the proposed punishment was duly considered and for cogent reasons, the Disciplinary

Authority awarded the punishment of dismissal. It is submitted that the acts of misconduct committed by the

Petitioner were over a period of nearly one year and as they were serious and grave in nature, the punishment of

dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges or harsh or excessive. It is therefore prayed to make an

Award upholding the dismissal of the Petitioner.

The perusal of the record reveals that the domestic Enquiry conducted by the Respondent in this case is

held as legal and valid vide order dated 15.9.2017.

The Petitioner has submitted written arguments u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but despite the

sufficient opportunity granted to the Respondent he did not adduce either oral or written argument.

On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties and arguments advanced, the following points

emerge for determination:-

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

II.

Whether the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner vide order

dated 5.11.2003 is justified?

III.

To what relief the petitioner is entitled for?

Findings:-

Point No.I:- The legality and validity of the Departmental Enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order

dated 15.9.2017.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

Point No.II:- The Petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer has conducted Enquiry without following

principles of natural justice and in a biased manner and even without affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing

to Petitioner substantiate his case has concluded the Enquiry and submitted his report holding the Petitioner guilty

of the charges levelled against him. Further it is submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer is unsustainable

in law as the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not based on the evidence available on

record and conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are against the principles of Law.

Per contra, the Respondent submits that during the Enquiry, employee was given due opportunity of hearing

to indicate his stand and the conclusion and findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on sound reasonings as well as

on the basis of material placed before him. Further, Respondent submits that the proceedings of the Enquiry were

recorded in the presence of the Petitioner and the other workmen as well as the office bearer of the union and after

satisfying themselves all of them had subscribed to the Enquiry proceedings on all the days of the Enquiry.

10.

The perusal of the record of Enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that Petitioner had participated in the

Enquiry proceeding at every stage and he was afforded fair opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and

employee was provided opportunity to cross examine the witness and to adduce evidence in defence. However, the

legality and validity of the Enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 15.9.2017. That order remained

unchalle3nged and became final. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner in this context as discussed above is not

acceptable. However, as regards contention of the Petitioner that finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is perverse

and not based on the evidence available on record. The record of Enquiry proceeding and report would reveal that

during the Enquiry proceeding the Management has examined 12 witnesses in support of charge and has also

examined the documentary evidence and on the basis of evidence available on record has written his finding in

Enquiry report. The plea of the Petitioner in this regard is untenable. Further, Petitioner advanced argument that

1306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

there was no ample evidence in support of charge against Petitioner and Enquiry Officer has held him guilty without

sufficient evidence in the Enquiry.

It is settled law that the sufficiency of the evidence to hold guilty of charge against employee in the Departmental

Enquiry is not necessary.

In the case of State of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya in Civil Appeal No.5861/2007 dated 1.3.2001

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

―6. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the

domestic Enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the Enquiry

has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or

the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries.

Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such

findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether

a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will

however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations

have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous

considerations.

Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Heem Singh, Civil Appeal No.3340/2020, dated 29.10.2001 Hon’ble

Apex Court have held:-

“To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary Enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level

of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the

charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary

findings in a disciplinary Enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so

would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common

sense without which the judges‟ craft is in vain.”

Further, in case of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 SCC 491, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“4. It is well settled that in a domestic Enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian

Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is

no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.” Further, it is held, “The simple

point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular

court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed

in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any

evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law

apparent on the record. “

11.

In the present case the Enquiry against employee has been held fairly and properly and Enquiry Officer has

recorded his finding after examining the oral and documentary evidence recorded during the Enquiry proceeding.

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above, the question of

adequacy of the Evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be ground for interference with the finding

in Departmental Enquiry. Hence, in the present matter it is not the case that findings are based on no evidence.

Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice and statutory regulation and has submitted his finding

on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down as discussed above, the

argument of the Petitioner that there was not sufficient evidence in the Enquiry to hold the Petitioner guilty of the

charges, is untenable.

12.

Further, the contention of the Petitioner that the charges against Petitioner are based on vagueness.

Therefore, vague charge is not sustainable in law. It would be apposite to mention here that in the present matter

charge sheet has been served upon employee and he had submitted his written reply to the charge sheet. Further, he

has cross examined the Management witnesses at length. He did not raise that objection before the Enquiry Officer

that there is vagueness in the charge sheet instead participated on Enquiry proceeding at each and every stage.

Hence, the argument of Petitioner about vagueness of charge is mere after thought and untenable.

13.

Further, argument is set up by the Petitioner that there is inconsistency and contradiction in the testimony of

Management witness and they are not reliable witness. In this context, it would be pertinent to mention here that it

is settled law that the principle and rules of evidence do not apply strictly to Departmental Enquiry and for the

appreciation of evidence in Departmental Enquiry the rule preponderance of probability will apply. On careful

examination and scrutiny of evidence in the Enquiry and the report of Enquiry Officer there is material and

relevant evidence on record and it can not be said that the report of Enquiry Officer is perverse. It is settled law that

appreciation of evidence in the Enquiry is the domain of the Enquiry Officer and Tribunal can not re-assess or

reappreciate the evidence in the enquiry nor interfere in the finding arrived at by Enquiry Officer only on the basis of

minor contradictions unless it is perverse and in breach of gross violation of Law.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1307

In this context, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemichand Nalwaya (supra),

have held that the Court will not act as Appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry nor

interference on the ground that another view possible on the material on record. Thus, in view of the settled law as

above, I find no force in this contention of the workman.

14.

Further, Petitioner has taken the plea that in the present matter the Enquiry Officer does not belong to the

Respondent office and he has conducted the Enquiry in a place far from the working place of the Respondent office,

hence much prejudice was caused to the Petitioner in attending the Enquiry as it was held at Warangal and

Hyderabad. The Enquiry conducted by the Respondent through outsider is not sustainable in law. Further, it is

contended that the Enquiry so conducted against Petitioner is prejudicial to the interest of the workman as the

Enquiry Officer is an Advocate.

15.

The Enquiry proceeding would reveal that the Petitioner has participated through out the Enquiry at each and

every stage, but he has not raised any objection regarding any prejudice caused to him during the Enquiry proceeding

and the Enquiry proceeding has been conducted by Enquiry Officer according to settled Principle of Law and

procedure. Workman has been afforded fair opportunity of hearing and he has produced his evidence in defence.

However, Petitioner failed to show or explain that what kind of prejudice has been caused to him by the conduct of

Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner has not pointed out towards any provision where an Advocate and outsider can not

be appointed as Enquiry Officer. Thus, the plea of the Petitioner in this context is baseless and without any

substance, hence, not tenable. As regards, the plea of the Petitioner that Enquiry has been conducted outside the

premises of work place at Warangal and Hyderabad the Petitioner has failed to show that what kind of prejudice has

been caused to him by holding the Enquiry outside the premises of work. Therefore, this argument of the Petitioner

is also untenable.

16.

Further, Counsel for Petitioner advanced the argument that the Respondent Management has imposed the

punishment of termination from service which is shockingly disproportionate and does not commensurate with the

proven misconduct and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground. Further, it is submitted that Disciplinary

Authority has not considered the reply submitted to show cause notice by the Petitioner and without application of

mind in a mechanical manner has passed the termination order dated 5.11.2003 of the Petitioner which is illegal

and liable to be set aside.

The perusal of the Enquiry proceeding would reveal that following charges were framed and has been proved against

the Petitioner in the enquiry:-

―2. It has been reported against you that as an experienced workman of the corporation, you have been found to have

committed the following serious acts of Indiscipline deliberately and willfully to secure undue, unwarranted,

unjustified and illegal personal gratification.

a) Complaints have been received against you that you have demanded and received illegal gratification from

PCVOs and their crew, ranging from Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- per tank lorry for each and every handling of

MS/HSD bridging tank lorries on several occasions. Such demand for money and receipt of the money

was through threatening as well as carrying out threats to the PCVO crew that if such payments were

delayed or not made to you by them, decanting/processing the papers of the PCVO tank lorries would be

deliberately held up by you so as to harass the PCVOs.

b) Complaints have also been received against you that you were demanding and collecting Rs.500/- (Rupees

five hundred) per tank lorry per month from the PCVOs/ their representatives, for several years, by way of

illegal gratification.

c) Complaints have also been received from two of our dealers viz., M/s Srikrishna Filling Station, Nandipet

and M/s. G. Venkatesham, Dichpally, that you were demanding and collecting money from the Dealers/their

representatives by way of illegal gratification and that you were harassing the dealers/representatives when

your demands were not met with.

d) Copies of the above complaints given by the PCVOs and Dealers are attached collectively as Annexure-I.

e) It has also been reported in the recent Operations Audits carried out in Nizamabad Depot that on several

occasions you had colluded with Shri M. Ramakrishnan, Sr Ops Officer and Sri Premsingh, General

Operator (Field) in unloading/diverting TLs carrying off-spec products i.e., tank lorries carrying MS/HSD

with variation in density beyond the permissible limits, without caring for and with scant regard to quality

control norms and procedures, which, as an Operator with long standing experience in the Corporation you

ought to have refused. It is evident that these deliberate acts were committed by you with the intention of

securing illegal gratification, in consideration of the money you had demanded and collected from the

PCVOs/their representatives on all such and other occasions.---

You are charged with the following acts of misconduct under the following clauses of the Standing Orders

applicable to you.

1308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i) S.o.29.1.5: Commision of any act, subversive of discipline or good behavior on the Corporation's premises, or

in the course of duty, or outside the Corporation's premises, if it is proved to have directly affected

the discipline or administration of the company.

(ii) S.O.29.1.6: Use of abusive language, threatening, intimidating or coercing within the premises of the

establishment against any other workman or person authorized to work in the premises of the

establishment an assault of threat of assault within the premises of the establishment on any

workman or person authorized to work on the premises of the establishment and any such act

outside the premises of the establishment, if it has a bearing on the discipline of the establishment.

(iii)S.O.29.1.14: Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the corporation's business or property for theft of

another workman's property within the premises of the establishment.

(iv)S.0.29.1.24: Damaging or losing corporation's property or endangering the life of another person through

willful neglect or default.”

17.

One can not possibly argue that the above stated charges are simply in nature, in other words charges

against the Petitioner were of serious nature and pertains to the doubtful and taunted integrity of the Petitioner. No

employer would have allowed or tolerated such employee while on duty. The employer had therefore, has every

right to initiate the domestic Enquiry against such employee for his such misconduct. Therefore, the order of

dismissal from service of Petitioner can not be faulted with nor it can not be said to be in any way disproportionate

to the charges. In other words, the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the gravity of the

charges against Petitioner and hence deserves to be upheld. As regards interference by the Court in the order of

termination of the Petitioner passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is settled principle of law that the Tribunal in

exercise of the power judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment.

In this context, decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are relevant being referred below:-

In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors.3, again a Three Judge Bench of this Court has held:-

“that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is

made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that

the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The Court/Tribunal in its

power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own

independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under:

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.

Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the

conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted

on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was

held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions

are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and

authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the

technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding.

When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is 3

(1995) 6 SCC 749 entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power

of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own

independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings

against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory

rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is

based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the

Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to

the facts of each case.”

In State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], Hon’ble Apex Court have

held:-

“the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed

upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in

exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of

proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that the High Court shall be very

slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience."

Further, in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022

LLR page 126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1309

“once the Enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper, industrial Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of conduct.”

Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Heem Singh, Civil Appeal No.3340/2020, (supra) Hon’ble Apex

Court have held:-

33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a

rule of restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible. The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of

judicial review. This is for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies

primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary

authority. Nor does the judge wear the hat of an employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary authority

is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is responsible for the efficient conduct of their service.

Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of

evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a

criminal trial, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities.

Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject…………..That is to

satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard

against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a disciplinary Enquiry or

to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle

which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges‟

craft is in vain.”

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, as discussed above in

the present matter, I find no cogent reason to interfere in the termination order dated 5.11.2003 from service of the

Petitioner passed by Disciplinary Authority of Respondent Management. As such, the action of the Respondent in

passing the punishment of dismissal on the Petitioner Sri N. Balashowraiah from service is held justified.

Thus, Point No. II is answered accordingly.

18.

Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Points No.I &II, the workman is not entitled to any relief and

the claim of workman is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the findings arrived at Points I to III above, it is held that, the action of the Management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri N. Bala Showraiah, vide order

dated 5.11.2003 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. The petition stands

dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

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

the 23^rd day of February, 2024.

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

1310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 582.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

ृोस्ट्ि मास्ट्िर, डाकघर कोरबा (प्रधान कायाचलय), कोरबा (छ.ग.); अधीक्षक प्रधान डाकघर, जतलक नगर, जबलासृुर-

(छ.ग.), के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद जनयोिकों और श्री ददजृत रा ौड़, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

िबलृुर ृंर्ाि (संदभच सं्‍या CGIT/LC/R/74/2020) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 18.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

था

[सं. िेड-40012/09/2018- आईआर-(डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 19th March, 2024

S.O. 582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/74/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Post Master, Post Office Korba (Head Office), Korba (Chhattisgarh); The Superintendent Head

Post Office, Tilak Nagar, Bilashpur-(Chhattisgarh), and Shri Dipit Rathore, Worker, which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.03.2024.

[No. L- 40012/09/2018- IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/74/2020

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Dipit Rathore

Budhwari Bazar, Korba, Bazrang Chowk,

Korba (Chattisgarh) - 495450

Workman

Versus

The Post Master,

Post Office Korba (Head Office)

Korba, Korba (Chhattisgarh) – 495450

The Superintendent

Head Post Office, Tilak Nagar,

BILASPUR (Chhattisgarh) - 495001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21^Th day of February-2024.)

As per letter dated 20/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

L-40012/09/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 20/12/2018. The dispute under reference related to:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1311

―Whether the action on the part of the contractor management ie the Post Master, Head Post Office.

Korba und Superintendent, Head Post Office, Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur in terminating the services of

Dipti Rathor Ex-Computer Operator Engaged on daily wage basis in Central Proccesing Centre of

Korha Head Post Office on Unjustified ground working for a period of almost 02 years continously

and not paying her terminal benefits and without complying section 25(F) of ID Act is legal and

justified? 2 Whether the Claim Raised by the Retrenched workman for further re-engagement and

regularisution subsequently not being considered by the post office management of Korba and

Bilaspur in the decision making process is appropriate and justified? If not, what relief Dipti Rathore,

the retrenched daily rated workman working in the CPC section of Korba Head Office is entitled to?‖

After registering a case on the basis of the reference received, notices were issued to the parties and

were duly served on them.

The case of workman is that she was a daily wager the management terminated from her service

without any notification and compensation. She was also not paid wages from 2016 to 2017. She has shot her

reinstatement with back wages and benefit.

Management has stated that she worked as a daily wager for which she was paid her wages; she

never completed 240 days in any year. Hence her disengagement is not against Law.

In evidence, the workman did not appear after filing her statement of claim, nor did she filed any

affidavit in support management fild affidavit of its witness who was not cross examined by the workman.

Management witness supported his case.

At the stage of argument also, non appeared for workmen no written argument was fild and

arguments from the side of management were heard.

Reference is the issue for determination in the case. Intitial burden to prove is on the workmen. In

absence of any evidence the claim of workmen is held not proceed.

The reference deserves to be answer against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 583.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससच लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कमचकार/यूजनयन के बीर् अनुबंध

में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-08/2017) को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 21.03.2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17011/5/2016- आईआर-(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 583.—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, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India and their Workmen/Union which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. L-17011/5/2016-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer.

REF. NO. 08 OF 2017

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India

AND

Their Workmen / Union

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management: Authorised Representative.

On behalf of the Union/Workmen : None

Dated: 28th February, 2024

AWARD

By order No. L-17011/5/2016 –IR(M) dated 13-02-2017, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

―Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zonal Office,

Hindustan Building, 4, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata : 072 for not granting stagnation increment in respect of Sri Deepak

Kumar Dey (since dead and represented by his legal heirs) w.e.f. 1^st April, 2015 is legal and/or justified. If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled?‖

The workman/Union which has raised the present dispute in its claim statement has alleged that Sri Deepak

Kumar Dey was a Senior Assistant (already retired on 31-03-2017) was working in Estate Department at Eastern

Zonal Office, Kolkata.

That the deceased workman was an office bearer of the union and as such he was victimised by Mrs.

Swapna Mukherjee, Secretary (Estate).

That for no reason the management of Life Insurance Corpn. of India stopped payment of his stagnation

increment w.e.f. 1^st April, 2015. Therefore, he was not allotted any duty by Mrs. Swapna Mukherjee. He was duly

informed about stoppage of his increment by Mrs. Mukherjee through a letter dated 21-04-2015.

Being aggrieved by such vindictive attitude of the Secretary (Estate), Sri Deepak Kumar Dey requested the

management through his Union for release of his increment but of no avail. Hence, the reference.

Such case of the workman has been contested by the management of Life Insurance Corpn. of India, by

filing written statement where it has alleged that as per Annual Confidential Report of Sri Deepak Kumar Das

received from the Department where the concerned workman was working was below average in the calendar years

2007 and 2014. That in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2001, 2002 and 2005 he was rated as an average

worker. The work performance of an employee of LIC is judged as per purview of Regulations of LIC of India (Staff)

Regulations,1960.

That on receipt of Confidential Report of Mr. Dey from Estate Department, P & IR Department evaluated

the CR rating of Mr. Dey of last two years and found he had scored 16.5 marks. As per rule, for granting stagnation

increment the employee in the cadre of Assistant has to secure minimum rating of 21 out of 35. In view of Per-

Admn/ZD/2 dated 16-10-1991 the Reporting Officer reported in CRs of Sri Dey, that he was given several verbal

warnings for his poor work performance. Considering the other factors the Assistant Secretary (OS), who is the

competent authority to release stagnation increment as per Gazette Notification GRS No. 443€ dated 18-06-1999,

found the record of Sri D. K. Dey not satisfactory for release of stagnation increment. The stagnation increment of Sri

D. K. Dey was deferred for one year and same was intimated to Sri Dey vide letter dated 21-04-2015. Thus, it has

prayed for dismissal of the reference being not maintainable.

The record shows the deceased concerned workman had examined himself as W.W. No.1, but no document

whatsoever has been produced by him in support of his claim and case. Ultimately, after his demise as per materials

on record on 08-02-2022, his legal heirs who have been substituted have failed to put appearance and pursue the

matter.

On the other hand the management declined to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. However,

the management of LIC has filed a letter dated 18-08-2020 addressed to Sri Deepak Kumar Dey, where he was

informed about sanction of his pension, commuted value and balance pension after commutation.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1313

However, the workman during his cross examination under oath before the Tribunal on 19-12-2019 had

admitted that he was working as an Assistant in Estate Department of LIC of India. He retired from the service on 31-

03-2017. His stagnation increment was deferred due to his poor performance. That his deferred stagnation increment

was released by the management of LIC of India before his retirement.

More so, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Class-III & Class –IV Employees (Revisions of Terms and

Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985, clause-7 provides that ‗addition to basic pay after reaching maximum of scale is

granted to an employee subject to the work record of the employee is found satisfactory and condition of fulfilling

certain criteria‘. The circular regarding increment dated 20-09-1976 issued by LIC of India shows that ‗stagnation

increment is to be released to an employee on his record of work being found satisfactory, the employee should put in

an active service of at least one year during two relevant years in order to assess his work record after he has reached

the maximum scale of pay applicable to him‘. Thus, from the above rules and circulars it appear in order to get

stagnation increment or addition to basic pay after reaching maximum of scale, the service record of an employee of

LIC of India has to be satisfactory. In the present case it is admitted fact that stagnation increment of the concerned

workman was deferred due to his poor performance. Therefore, apparently the management of LIC of India was

justified in withholding stagnation increment of the concerned workman but it was admitted by the deceased

workman he was paid the deferred stagnation increment by the management of LIC of India before his retirement.

It is settled law that admission is the best evidence. As per admission of the workman his stagnation

increment was withheld by the management of LIC of India due to his poor performance. He has also admitted that

his deferred stagnation increment was released by the management of LIC of India before his retirement on 31-03-

2017. The order of reference shows the dispute regarding withholding of his stagnation increment was referred to this

Tribunal by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment on 13-02-2017.

Thus, from the above admitted facts, it is seen that the management of LIC of India settled the dispute

regarding withholding of stagnation increment of the concerned workman before his retirement. Further, from the

letter dated 18-08-2020 filed by A.R. of the management of LIC of India before this Tribunal on 21-02-2024, it is

seen that commuted value and pension of concerned workman were released and his gross monthly pension was fixed

Rs.21,792/-. The other documents lying in the record shows Smt. Renuka Dey, widow of deceased, have already

applied for family pension.

In view of above, at present there exists no dispute regarding withholding of stagnation increment of the

deceased workman by the management of LIC of India. Accordingly, no dispute award is passed and Reference

No. 08 of 2017 is disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 584.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

सीसीआई, रािबन सीमेंि फैक्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सीसीआई मज़दूर यूजनयन के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, र्ंडीगढ़, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-13/2014) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 21.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. एल-29011/44/2013-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to CCI, Rajban Cement Factory and CCI Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. L-29011/44/2013-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.13/2014

Registered on:-18.06.2014

General Secretary, CCI Mazdoor Union, Rajban Cement Factory, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour(HP).

........Workmen-Union

Versus

The General Manager, CCI, Rajban Cement Factory, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour(H.P.).

......Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed On:-05.03.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-29011/44/2013-IR(M), Dated 20.05.2014, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) 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 demands raised by General Secretary, CCI Mazdoor Union, Rajban Cement Factory,

Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour as per their charges of demands dated 18.11.2011 against the

management of CCI, Rajban Cement Factory, Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour is just, valid and legal? If

not, to what other benefits to the works entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?

Today i.e. 05.03.2024 the case was fixed for arguments. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed that

the workmen-Union is not appearing/representing on 21.07.2022, 03.02.2023, 24.03.2023, 22.05.2023, 28.07.2023,

11.10.2023, 22.11.2023 and today also i.e. 05.03.2024, whereas several dates for arguments have been fixed by the

Tribunal, which denotes that workmen-union is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.

Since the workmen-union has neither put his appearance for long nor he has argued the case to prove his

cause against the management and the workmen-union has left the case unattended for a long time without any

intimation, 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 the workmen-union.

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

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 585.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] I - ददल्ली ds iapkV (22/2021) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[la- ,y -12011/49/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court -I

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen.

[No. L-12011/49/2020- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1315

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVENRMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT DELHI-1,

ROOM NO. 207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 22/2021

The General Secretary,

Dena Bank Employees Association,

Central Office, Bank of Baroda,

4^th Floor, Rajendra Place,

New Delhi-110008

…..…….Workman

Versus

1. The Zonal Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Zonal Office, 16, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

………..Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No. L-12011/49/2020

(IR(B-II) of dated 08.01.2021 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

―Whether there exists relationship of employer-employee between the applicants/drivers (Details as per

Annexure ‗A‘) and the management of Bank of Baroda? If yes, whether these applicants (Details as per

Annexure ‗A‘) are entitled for absorption/regularization of their services as Drivers with the management of

Bank of Baroda? If yes, from which date and what directions are necessary in this regard?‖

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adjudication of the reference on merits.

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

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

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

Justice VIKAS KUNAVAR SHRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 586.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

सीमेंि कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया जलजमिेड (सीसीआई) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सीमेंि मज़दूर यूजनयन के बीर्

अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-02/2020) को

िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 21.03.2024 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/03/2024-आईआर(एम)-1]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

1316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 02/2020) 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 Cement Corporation of India Limited (CCI) and Cement Mazdoor Union which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. Z-16025/03/2024-IR(M)-1]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/A/02/2020

The President, Cement Mazdoor Union,

Jawad Saifi Villa, Opposite State Bank of India

Veer Park Road, Neemuch (M.P)

On behalf of Security Guards

CCI Nayagaon Cement Factory

Tehsil : Jawad, Distt: Neemuch (MP)

APPLICANT

VERSUS

The General Manager (NOU)

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. (CCI)

Core-5 SCOPE Complex, Lodi Road

New Delhi – 110003

NON-APPLICANT

ORDER

(Passed on this 19^th day of February 2024)

The petition has been filed by the President of the workman union under section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter referred to by the word Act, wherein it has been stated that the workman in another

union has raised an industrial dispute being aggrieved by the action of the management in not regularising the services

of Sri Gheeshlal Sharma and 39 others, even after completing 240 days in a calendar year. Reference in this respect,

made by the Central Government is spending disposal before this Tribunal, the management has filed its written

statement of defence in that case. The management have proceeded to selling out the nonworking unit of the

management i.e cement Corporation of India (in short C.C.I.) In the Nayagaon Madhya Pradesh. The management has

issued notices to the establishments who are having any dues to be cleared by the management. The management is

further, proposing to transfer the provident fund accounts of the workmen from provident fund office, New Delhi

provident fund office at Ujjain ignoring the representations of the workmen union against this action. The workmen

union has prayed. Accordingly, that this action of management be held illegal and improper and the sale process as

well process of transferring the provident fund accounts of the workmen be stayed.

The management has filed a written objection, wherein it has been stated that case number R/50/2014 is

pending before this Tribunal on the basis of reference sent to this Tribunal by Central Government. The unit is a sick

unit and has lost its net worth. It has been referred to BIFR and has been declared sick under sick industrial companies

(special provisions) act 1985 wide order dated August 8^th , 1996. Rehabilitation package for its revival was

sanctioned through sanction scheme on May 3^rd,2006 in which 7 units of the management, including its unit at

Nayagaon has been proposed for sale. The management has accordingly issued a notice of closure of its Nyagaon unit

on July 28^th,2008 and the said unit has been closed from October 31^st 2008. Its employees have been given terminal

benefits. Two attempts were made to sell the unit at two occasions in the year 2008 and 2013, but unsuccessful. In the

year 2016, the entire cement Corporation of India has been this invested in two phases and against sale process has

been started. The applicant‘s claim themselves to be the employees of the management of cement Corporation of

India are in fact, the employees of the contactor who has been given the task of security of the plant and machinery of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1317

the management. There provident fund payments and accounts are managed by the contactor and not by the

management. Accordingly, management has prayed that the petition be dismissed

As regards to the first relief claimed by the Workman union regarding staying of sale process of the unit is

not cognizable by this Tribunal in industrial disputes act because this act is itself does not qualify to be an industrial

dispute as defined in section 2(k) of the Act.

The second relief claimed also is not an industrial dispute in the light of definition of industrial dispute as

mentioned above. The provident fund of an employee is deducted under the provisions of the employees provident

fund and miscellaneous provisions act 1952. It is beyond comprehension as to how transfer of provident fund of an

employee, working in Madhya Pradesh, from Delhi to Ujjain is against his interest.

In the light of above discussion, the petition deserves to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. No order as

to cost.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 587.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससच ियप्रकाि एसोजसएट्स जलजमिेड, िेृी रेवा प्लांि वक्सच के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सीमेंि मज़दूर एकता

यूजनयन (सीआईिीयू) के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंर्ाि

(ररफरेन्स न.-45/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी

के साथ 21.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/24/2021-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited, JP Reva Plant Works and Cement Mazdoor Ekta Union (CITU) which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. L-29011/24/2021-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2021

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The President/General Secretary,

Cement Mazdoor Ekta Union (CITU),

J.P Cement Rewa, Jaypee Nagar

Rewa (MP) – 486450

Workman

Versus

The Factory Manager/Sr. Joint President,

M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

Jaypee Rewa Plant Works,

PO – Jaypeenagar, Rewa (MP) –486450

Management

1318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed on this 21^st day of February-2024)

As per letter dated 16/09/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

L-29011/24/2021 (IR(M)) dt. 16/09/2021 . The dispute under reference related to :-

"1. Whether the workers as per List (Annexure-F) are entitled to wages during the lockdown period

or not? If not what relief are they entitled to?

2. Whether the demands for taking back the workers for employment as per List (Annexure-F) are

justified & legal or not? If not, as to what relief are they entitled to?‖

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of allotment of time and service of

notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of workman not proved the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 588.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससच जभलाई िेृी सीमेंि जलजमिेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और जिला सतना सीमेंि स्ट्िील फाउंड्री खदान कामगार

यूजनयन (एिक) के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर, ृंर्ाि

(ररफरेन्स न.-41/2021) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी

के साथ 21.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/18/2021-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 41/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Bhilai Jaypee Cement Limited and Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Mine Workers Union (AITUC)

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. L-29011/18/2021-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1319

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/2021

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary,

Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kamgar

Union (AITUC), AITUC Office Santnagar, Ghoordang

Ward No. 11, PO- Birla Vikas, Satna (MP)

Workman

Versus

The Factory Manager,

M/s Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd.,

PO- Babupur, Satna (MP) – 485112

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 23^Th day of February-2024.)

As per letter dated 23/08/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

L-29011/18/2021(IR(M)) dt. 23/08/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-

―Whether the demand raised by the Zila Satna Cement Steel Foundry Khadan Kamgar Union

(AITUC), Satna for classification of the post & difference of wages & other benefits by regularizing to

the contract labour (List of labours Annexure-A), is legal, justified and valid?

If not, as to what relief the contract labour are entitled to?‖

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of allotment of time and service of

notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of workman not proved the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 589.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससच ओएनिीसी जलजमिेड; मेससच सीताराम एनिी एंड लोजिजस्ट्िक्स जलजमिेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

ओएनिीसी एडजमजनस्ट्रेरिव एंड िेजक् नकल कॉन्रैक्ि वकचसच एसोजसएिन के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-133/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 21.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/27/2019-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

1320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 133/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to M/s ONGC Limited; M/s Sitaram Energy and Logistics Limited and ONGC

Administrative and Technical Contract Workers Association which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. L-30011/27/2019-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 : 23.02.2024

Reference: (CGITA) No- 133/2019

The General Manager (HR) I/C HR-ER,

M/s ONGC Limited, Mehsana Asset,

KDM Bhawan, Palavasana, Mehsana,

Gujarat, Pin Code – 384003.

The Director,

M/s Sitaram Energy & Logistics Ltd.,

12, Shakespeare Sarani,

Kolkata – 700071.

…...…….First Party

The General Secretary,

O.N.G.C. Administrative & Technical

Contract Workers Association,

B-144, Saraswati Nagar, I.O.C. Road,

Chandkhed, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 382424 ………….Second Party

For the First Party No.1

: Shri P.F. Zaveri

For the First Party No.2

: None

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

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

No. L-30011/27/2019-IR(M) dated 14.10.2019 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the demand of O.N.G.C. Administrative & Technical Contract Workers Association, Ahmedabad

vide letter dated 27.09.2017 and 04.05.2018 in respect of S/Shri (s) Dattatrayam Vasant Damame & 16

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1321

others (list enclosed) who are/were working as a contractual worker under various contractor(s) of the

ONGC Ltd, Mehsana Asset, Mehsana to give Permanent status of ONGC Ltd, Mehsana Asset, Mehsana

with similar wages and other benefits of ONGC Ltd, Mehsana Asset, Mehsana which are being paid to the

permanent workmen of the ONGC Ltd, Mehsana Asset, Mehsana from the date of their respective initial

date of joining is legal, fair & justified?

If yes, then what relief these disputants [S/Shri (s) Dattatrayam Vasant Damame & 16 others] are entitled to and what

other directions, if any, are necessary in this matter?‖

The matter was taken up today. First Party employer No.1 is represented through Ld. Counsel

Shri P. F. Zaveri. None responds for First Party employer No.2. None responds for SP/wrokmen‘s union. Perusal of

record shows that the case on behalf of 6 workmen, namely Dattaryam Damame Sr. No.1, Motaliya BipinKumar

Sr. No.9, Sanjaybhai Maganbhai Sr. No.10, Vanraj Modiya Sr. No.12, Jitender Gupta Sr. No.15 and Vanishkumar G.

Dub Sr. No.16 has been withdrawn vide order dtd. 31.10.2023. The case is fixed for statement of claim to be filed on

behalf of remaining eleven workmen namely Thakor Kiranji Kuvarji Sr. No.2, Sartaj Ishtahar Sr. No.3, Amrendra

Bin Sr. No.4, Nitish Ram Mahent Ram Sr. No.5, Altab Ahamad Jainudin Sr. No.6, Sukhbir Singh Piarasingh Sr. No.7,

Washid Ansharj Sr. No.8, Desai Mohan Kumar Sr. No.11, Md. Naseem Ansari Sr. No.13, Monu Yadav Sr. No.14 and

Thakor Dilipji Bachuji Sr. No.17. They have not filed any statement of claim despite various opportunities. It appears

that these eleven absentee SP/workmen are not interested to proceed further in the matter. There is no evidence on

record to substantiate the claim of these remaining 11 workmen under reference. In the circumstances, the claim under

scheduled reference is answered against these 11 absentee SP workmen holding that their said demand to have their

status as permanent is not legal, fair and justified for want of evidence.

The reference is answered accordingly.

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 590.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

सीजनयर जडजविनल मैनेिर,भारतीय िीवन बीमा जनगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री र्न्द्रप्रकाि के बीर्

अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-32/2017) को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-36]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to The Senior Divisional Manager, Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam and Shri Chandraprakash which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-36]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 32/2017

BETWEEN

श्री चन्द्र प्रकाश पुत्र ककशोरी लाल

मोहल्ला-माया बाजार दकिणी (डा० गोपाल के बगल में) जनपद-गोरखपुर (उ०प्र०)

AND

सीकनयर कडवीजनल मैनेजर भारतीय जीवन बीमा कनगम, मण्डल कायाालय

तारामण्डल रोड, गोरखपुर-273017

AWARD

On 22.09.2017 the claimant/workman has filed the present industrial dispute as per the provisions of Section 2A (2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The claimant in his statement of claim has submitted that he has been appointed as Peon with opposite party on

17.12.2011; however, his services have been terminated without any notice w.e.f. 16.12.2012.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed for following relief:

“(क) यह कक उपरोक्त वाद आई०डी० केस मानकर सुनवाई करने की कृपा करें।

(ख) यह कक कदनाांक 16:02:2012 से की गयी सेवा समाप्ति आदेश को अनुकचत ठहराये।

(ग) यह कक बेकारी काल में हो रही वेतन व अन्य आकथाक हाकनयोां को कदलाये।

(घ) व्यथा की मुकदमें बाजी के कलए वाद का पररव्यय भी कदलाये।“

After filing of pleadings on behalf of parties, Sri N.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent has raised a

preliminary objection that the present case, aggrieved by the alleged impugned action by which the services of the

applicant was terminated/retrenched, he has approached this Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 2A of the

Act read with section 2A (3) of the Act, so, in view of provisions as provided in section 2A (3) of the Act, as period of

limitation is three years i.e. fixed period of limitation, thus, taking into consideration the provisions of section 2A(3)

of the Act, present claim petition filed by the applicant on 22.09.2017 allegedly aggrieved by the order of

termination/retrenchment dated 16.12.2012 is totally illegal and arbitrary and is barred by period of limitation as

provided in the section 2A(3) of the Act.

In rebuttal, Sri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for claimant, placed reliance on para 3 of the statement of claim, which

reads as under:

“3. यह कक माननीय सहायक श्रमायुक्त इलाहाबाद द्वारा वाद सां०-ए-7(07)/2017 को सुनवाई हेतु कतकथा कनधााररत ककया।

कनम्न कतकथयोां को 13.07.2017 व 10.08.2017 को सटेलमेन्ट हेतु कनकित ककया परन्तु समझौता न होने पर केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्यौकगक अकधकरण कम लेबर कोटा में सब्सेक्शन (2) (3) औद्योकगक कववाद अकधकनयम की धारा-2ए सांशोकधत 2010 के

अनुसार सी०जी० आई०टी० में वाद लगाने की सलाह कद0-10.08.17 को कलप्तखत रूप में कदया‖

Accordingly, Sri Verma submitted that preliminary objection raised by respondent has no merit, liable to be

dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

Now the core question which is to be considered is that in view of the facts which are stated hereinabove, admittedly

the services of the applicant was terminated on 16.12.2012 and thereafter he has filed the present case before this

Tribunal u/s 2A of the Act on 22.09.2017 on the grounds as taken by him as quoted hereinabove, is maintainable or

barred by the period of limitation as provided u/s 2A(3).

Hon‘ble the Karnataka High Court in ITC Infotech India Ltd. vs. Venkataramana Uppada ILR 2016 Karnataka

3041 has held as under:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1323

“9. Section 2A of the I.D. Act enables the individual workman to raise a dispute connected with or

arising out of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his services by his

employer and by legal fiction it would constitute "Industrial Dispute". No other type of dispute

regarding an individual workman is contemplated by Section 2A. After the enactment of Section 2A, it

is not necessary that a dispute relating to the discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service of a workman must be sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of

workman. In other words, even if it is not sponsored by a trade union or a substantial number of

workman, such a dispute will be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Section 2A of the ID Act reads as

under:

"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute -

"(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the

services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his

employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other

workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.

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

sub-Section(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date

he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for

conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal

shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute

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

and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in

relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-Section(2) shall be made to the Labour Court or

Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment

or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section(1)."

10. By Act 24 of 2010, Section 2A was renumbered as sub-Section(1) and by same Act i.e., Act 24 of

2010 sub-Section (2) and (3) came to be inserted after Section 2A(1) of the I.D. Act. The said

amendment Act came into effect on and from 15th September, 2010. In the absence of any specific

provision to the contrary Act 24 of 2010 is to be held operative prospectively.

11. The effect of amendment is that any workman who has been discharged, dismissed, retrenched or

terminated as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 2A may make an application directly to the

Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of his individual dispute after the expiry of 45 days from

the date he has made an application to the conciliation officer of the appropriate Government for

conciliation of the dispute. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A lays down the time limit for making such

application to Labour Court or Tribunal. It provides that such application to the Labour Court or

Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute shall be made before the expiry of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal and retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in

subSection(1).

12. A bare reading of above provision would indicate that a dispute covered under sub-Section(1) can

be agitated or questioned by a workman by making an application directly to the Labour Court or

Tribunal for adjudication of such dispute and such application should be filed before the expiry of

three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service. In

other words, the right conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of

expiry of three years of the date of dismissal, discharge etc. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2A would

operate independently. The right available to the workman under Section 2A is not withstanding

anything contained in Section 10 of the ID Act.

13. Thus, question which would arise for consideration in the instant case is; Whether dispute raised

beyond three years from the date of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment can be entertained by the

Labour Court or Tribunal by condoning the delay if any in raising the dispute or filing a claim petition

or in other words, if an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is

filed, would it be maintainable and such delay can be condoned?

14. Prior to incorporation of Section 2A a workman had to necessarily depend upon the trade unions

to espouse his cause for seeking reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act. The incorporation of

Section 2A enabled the workman to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal directly and prevented the

mischief of unreasonable delay occasioning on account of reference not being referred to by the

appropriate Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act.

1324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15. Section 10(4A) of the I.D. Act introduced by Karnataka Amendment Act 5 of 1988 enables an

individual workman to challenge a termination order by directly applying to the Labour Court within

six months from the date of communication of such order of termination.

16. The period of limitation for filing a petition before the Labour Court is six months from the date of

communication of such order. A Division Bench of this Court has held in KSRTC Vs KHALEEL

AHMED AND ANR reported in ILR 2002 (3) Kar 3827 that the period of six months prescribed under

Section 10(4A) cannot be extended. It has been held by the Division Bench as under:

"23. It seems quite clear to us that the State Legislature has incorporated sub-Section (4A) in

Section 10 of the Act to provide a more expeditious remedy to the workman enabling him to

redress his grievances without undergoing the ordeal of approaching any Labour Union and

without approaching the State Government for referring his case to the Labour Court.

Therefore, the remedy provided under sub-Section (4-A) is a remedy alternative to what is

provided under sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. But the right created under the State

Amendment is coupled with a condition that individual workman has to prefer application

before the Labour Court within the time frame of six months fixed by the legislature. It is a

statutory condition precedent for exercise of the right and availment of remedy under sub-

Section (4-A) of Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, it has to be held that if an application is

filed beyond the period of 6 months as prescribed under the above sub-Section, then it will be

incumbent on the part of the Labour Court not to entertain such an application since the

condition does not only bars the special remedy but it also strikes at the jurisdiction of the

Labour Court to entertain such an application. Such an interpretation is in consonance with

the general rule of interpretation of statute. Such construction will not also in any way

prejudice the right of a workman to get his dispute resolved by a reference under sub-Section

10(1) of the Act provided the dispute sought to be raised do not become stale because of his

inaction as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Balbir Singh Vs Punjab Roadways,

Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Vs Prahlad Singh and Telecom District Manager Vs A.A.

Angali".

(emphasis supplied)

17. In EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND OTHERS VS LOKESH REDDY AND OTHERS reported in

MANU/KA/0190/2003 : 2003 (3) LLJ 662 the point which came up for consideration was whether the

period of limitation provided under Section 10(4A) of the Act is directory or mandatory and it came to

be held that it was mandatory. It has been held as under:

"40. In view of the discussion made so far, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the

learned single judge in the present matters in holding the period of limitation provided under

Section 10(4-A) of the Act as directory and not mandatory and affirm the view taken in the

case of Khaleel Ahmed (supra), which has already clarified the said position of law holding

the period of limitation in Section 10(4-A) as mandatory. So, the view taken by the Labour

Court and affirmed by the learned single judge in the matters relating to period of limitation

provided under Section 10(4-A) of the Act, being contrary to the Division Bench decision of

this Court in the Case of Khaleel Ahmed (Supra) cannot be sustained and consequently, the

impugned awards in allowing the applications filed after about six years (and not within six

months) under Section 10(4-A) of the Act should have been set aside by the learned single

judge. Since that was not done by the learned single judge in the impugned order, our

interference is required".

18. As to whether the plea of limitation though not raised, is required to be considered by the Labour

Court or not while adjudicating a claim petition filed under Section 10(4A), came up for consideration

before the Division Bench in SMT. RUKMINIBAI AND OTHERS VS THE DIVISIONAL

CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, BIDAR DIVISION, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER reported in ILR 2013

Kar 1024 and held that Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, is peremptory in nature and imposing a

duty on the Court to dismiss the applications which are barred by limitation even if the plea of

limitation is not raised. It has been held as under:

"9. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is peremptory in nature. It imposes a duty on the

Court to dismiss the applications, which are barred by limitation even if the plea of limitation

is not raised. If the claim petition is barred by time, the Court or an adjudicating authority

has no power or authority to entertain such an application and decide it on merits. As stated,

even in the absence of such a plea by the respondent or opponent, the Court or the authority

must dismiss such an application if it is satisfied that the same is barred by limitation."

19. Keeping the above principles in mind, a reading of Section 2A(3) would lead to an irresistible

conclusion that time stipulated for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1325

case may be, has to be necessarily "before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-Section (1)." Time limit

for making an application to the Labour Court stipulated in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A does not

appear to have a bearing to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 2A. In any event right

conferred under Section 2A would lapse immediately preceding the date of expiry of three years from

the date of dismissal, discharge etc.,. In other words, the limitation of three years prescribed under

sub-Section (3) of Section 2A being mandatory, same cannot be condoned by taking recourse to

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which has no application to the provisions of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

20. It is well settled principle that if an act is required to be performed within a specified time, the

same would primarily be mandatory. It has been held in the case of NAZIRUDDIN VS SITARAM

AGARWAL reported in AIR 2003 SCW 908 to the following effect:

"The Courts jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It

is well known that in a given case, the Court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the

texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language

of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract the words to a statute or

read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation. It is also

necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has not used any

superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of legislature must be gathered

from the language used."

21. Thus, in the background of the dicta of the Apex Court in NAZIRUDDIN's case referred to supra,

when Section 2A is perused, it would indicate that if the legislature really intended that the period of

limitation provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A was to be construed as directory, then it would not

have prescribed the limitation of three years and it would have used the words "at any time" instead of

using the words "before the expiry of three years". Though the words at any time' is found in Section

10(1), same is conspicuously absent in sub-Section(3) of Section 2A which would clearly depict the

intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-Section (3)

of Section 2A and as such legislature did not employ the words at any time' in the said provision as

found in Section 10(1) and in its place, it has specifically incorporated the words before the expiry of

three years'. Hence, to interpret the period of limitation found in sub-Section (3) of Section 2A as

directory and not mandatory would amount to adding something which is not provided in the provision

by the legislature or it would amount to doing violence to the provision, if such interpretation is sought

to be made.

22. In the background of aforestated discussion, when the facts of hand are examined, it would clearly

indicate that on the services of the employee -respondent being terminated by the Management by

letter of termination dated 11.02.2009, a reference was sought under Section 10(1)(c) (d) of the I.D.

Act by the respondent by submitting a representation to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore on

06.09.2012. The appropriate Government made a reference by order dated 03.06.2013 - Annexure-N

and pursuant to the same, proceedings was commenced before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in

Reference No. 16/2013. After appearance of the respondent - employee before the Labour Court and

before filing of the claim petition, a memo came to be filed on 07.11.2013 (part of Annexure-M)

seeking withdrawal of the reference and permission to file a fresh application under Section 2A(2) of

the I.D. Act. The said memo was partially accepted by the Labour Court as could be seen from the

order dated 07.11.2013 (part of Annexure-M) passed on the said memo. It reads as under:

"First Party present and filed memo stating that the present reference is not maintainable and he

intent's to file fresh application under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act.

Heard the respondent counsel. Perused the memo filed by the first party -workman for the reasons

mentioned in memo the reference is hereby dismissed and case is closed."

And Hon‘ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Pankaj Swami vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &

ors. MANU/RH/1788/2019 after taking into consideration the provisions of sedation 2A(2) & 2A(3) of the Act held

as under:

“The provisions are explicit, wherein the workman can approach the Labour Court for adjudication of

the dispute in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment etc., however, sub-section (3) provides that

the application should be made to the Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified.

8. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the cause of action arose to the

petitioner prior to introduction of the provision of limitation by sub-section (3) the same would have

no application is concerned, the submission made is fallacious, inasmuch as, the provision under

1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

which the application has been filed by the petitioner i.e. section 2-A(2) of the Act, itself was

introduced by the amendment Act of 2010 alongwith the limitation therein and therefore, the provision

of limitation which was introduced in the year 2010 alongwith the main provision providing for the

limitation would apply with all force and the submission that the same would have no application to

the cause of action, which arose prior to 2007, has no basis.

The submissions as made, if accepted, would result in circumstances where if the cause of action has

arisen post 2010, the same would be barred, whereas the causes, which arose prior to 2010 like in the

year 2007 in the present case and the application is filed after 7 years, the same would never become

barred by limitation, such a result is legally untenable.

9. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner had approached

the Conciliation Officer and had raised the dispute before him, where there was no limitation and the

petitioner approached the Labour Court only as per the directions of the Conciliation Officer the

claim could not be rejected by barred by limitation also does not advance the cause of the petitioner,

inasmuch as, the petitioner could have taken advantage of the said position, if the Conciliation Officer

had sent a failure report to the appropriate Government who in turn had referred the dispute to the

Labour Court. Merely because the Conciliation Officer suggested approaching the Labour Court,

which suggestion was accepted by the petitioner, cannot be termed as a reference under section 10 of

the Act to the Labour Court.

10. In view of the above discussion in so far as the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the

Labour Court being barred by limitation is concerned, the same cannot be faulted.”

And in the case of Parthasarathy vs. Souther Pins and Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/TN/6691/2020

Hon‘ble the High Court of Madras has held as under:

“Inasmuch as the notice of termination of the Petitioner in the present case has been made on

06.10.2014 under Section 2-A(2) of the Act after the said amendment has come into force, the

limitation of three years prescribed under Section 2-A(3) of the Act would necessarily apply. As such,

there is no infirmity in the decision-making process of the Labour Court in refusing to entertain the

application made by the Petitioner has time barred. This view is supported by the decisions of this

Court in the following cases:-

(i) ITC Infotech India Ltd. v. Venkataramana Uppada (Order dated 03.03.2016 in W.P. No.

27510 of 2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka)

(ii) Management of Ashok Leyland v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Order dated

13.04.2016 in W.P. Nos. 9640 and 9641 of 2016 passed by this Court)

(iii) Ravi Kumar v. Management, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation (Order

dated 11.04.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 4269 of 2017 passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court)

(iv) K. Settu v. Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Order dated 20.09.2019 in

W.P. No. 8413 of 2019 passed by this Court)

5. A feeble attempt is made on behalf of the Petitioner to suggest that the period of conciliation must

be excluded while computing the limitation. It is, no doubt, true that Section 2-A(2) of the Act

contemplates such application to be made to the Labour Court after the expiry of 45 days from the

date of application to the Conciliation Officer is made. However, it does not require that the

conciliation proceedings should have been completed before making that application under Section 2-

A(2) of the Act. The words in Section 2-A(3) of the Act are clear enough that the limitation has to be

reckoned on the expiry of three years from the date of termination. The Petitioner in the instant case

had made the application for conciliation on 12.04.2017 which had also concluded on 27.06.2017, but

the Petitioner had not approached the Labour Court after 45 days either from 12.04.2017 or even from

27.06.2017. As such, the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced.”

(see also Kandasamy Spinning Mills Private Ltd. vs S. Palanisamy and Ors. MANU/RN/6831/2019

Reverting the facts of the present case, and taking into the consideration as provided in section 2A (2) read with

section 2A(3) of the Act and the law laid down by the various Hon‘ble High Courts as stated hereinabove, as in the

present case the services of the employee/workman have been terminated on 16.12.2012; and he has filed the present

case on 22.09.2017 on the basis of reasoning as given by him in his claim petition is not maintainable, being barred by

the provisions as provided u/s 2A(3) of the Act i.e. filed after three years, so the present case is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

04^th March, 2024.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1327

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 591.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

अम्बुिा सीमेंि जलजमिेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अम्बुिा सीमेंि वकचसच यूजनयन के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, र्ंडीगढ़, ृंर्ाि (ररफरेन्स न.-5/2017) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक

में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 21.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/2/2017-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 5/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Ambuja Cement Limited and Ambuja Cement Workers Union which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 21.03.2024.

[No. L-29011/2/2017-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 5/2017

Registered on:-11.07.2017

The General Secretary, Ambuja Cement Workers Union, Daralaghat, Tehsil-Arki, Distt.-Solan, Himachal Pradesh-

171102.

........Workmen-Union

Versus

The Director, Ambuja Cement Ltd., Rouri & Sulli, Daralaghat, Distt. Solan(Himachal Pradesh)-171102.

......Respondent/Management

AWARD

Passed On:-05.03.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-29011/2/2017-IR(M), Dated 28.06.2017, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) 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 action of the management of Ambuja Cement Ltd., Darlaghat and its 17 contractors in not

providing canteen coupon, uniform, ID card with category with a mentioned of name of the Principal

Employer on the card duly certified by the Labour Department (Demand No.1) is just, fair and legal?

If not, to what relied the contract workers engaged by these 17 contractors are entitled?‖

―Whether action of the management of Ambuja Cement Ltd., Darlaghat and its 17 contractors in not

paying HRA (demand No.2) is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the contract workers engaged

by these 17 contractors are entitled?‖

1328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 30, 2024/CHAITRA 10, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether action of the management of Ambuja Cement Ltd. Darlaghat in not providing office

building for the union(demand no.3) is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the union is entitled?‖

―Whether action of the management of Ambuja Cement Ltd., Darlaghat in not considering the

demand for regulation of contract labourers on completion of 6 years service (demand No.7) is just,

fair and legal? If not, to what relief the union is entitled?‖

Today i.e. 05.03.2024 the case was fixed for filing objection by the workmen-Union to the application

moved by the management regarding framing of issues as well as to the application for taking on record the

documents filed with the application. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed that the workmen-Union is not

appearing/representing on 28.03.2023, 19.07.2023, 25.09.2023, 22.11.2023 and today also i.e. 05.03.2024, whereas

several dates have been fixed by the Tribunal, which denotes that workmen-union is neither serious nor interested in

disposal of the case on merit.

Since the workmen-union has neither put his appearance for long nor he has filing objection by the

workmen-Union to the application moved by the management regarding framing of issues as well as to the

application for taking on record the documents filed with the application to prove his cause against the management

and the workmen-union has left the case unattended for a long time without any intimation, 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 the workmen-union.

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

नई ददल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2024

का.आ. 592.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय मु्‍य

प्रबंधक हहदुस्ट्तान एयरोनॉरिक्स जलजमिेड, फैिाबाद रोड, लखनऊ; उृाध्यक्ष, एस.आई.एस. इंजडया जलजमिेड, अलीगंि,

लखनऊ; िाखा प्रबंधक, एस.आई.एस. इंजडया जलजमिेड, इंददरा नगर, लखनऊ,के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री मनोि कुमार जवश्वकमाच, कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- लखनऊ ृंर्ाि(संदभच सं्‍या 21/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है,

प्रकाजित करती है िो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ि कॉृी के साथ 19/03/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-51-आईआर-(डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2024

S.O. 592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

Chief Manager Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,Faizabad Road, Lucknow ; The Vice President, S.I.S. India Ltd.,

Aliganj, Lucknow ; The Branch Manager, S.I.S. India Ltd., Indira Nagar, Lucknow, and Shri Manoj Kumar

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

19/03/2024.

[No. L-42025/07/2024-51-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 30, 2024/ र्ैत्र 10, 1946

1329

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 21/2018

BETWEEN

Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma

R/o, 63/49, Hata Rasool Khan Guru Govind Singh Marg, Lucknow

AND

1-Chief Manager Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Faizabad Road, Lucknow

2-Vice President, S.I.S. India Ltd.

26-Chandralok Colony, Aliganj, Lucknow

3-Branch Manager, S.I.S. India Ltd., D-3031, Munshi Pulia Crossing

Indira Nagar, Lucknow

AWARD

On 10.09.2018 the claimant/workman has filed the present industrial dispute as per the provisions of Section 2A (2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The claimant in his statement of claim has submitted that he was initially engaged on 01.01.2007 as class IV worker

with respondent no. 1; however, his services have been terminated without any notice w.e.f. 28.05.2015.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed for following relief:

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the workman may be held entitled for reinstatement with back wages

from the date of his termination with consequential benefits.”

On 16.03.2020, respondent filed its preliminary objection and written statement; wherein it has submitted that present

industrial dispute is not maintainable as per the provisions of section 2A (3) of the Act.

Sri Adarsh Jagdhari, learned counsel for respondent submitted that aggrieved by the alleged impugned action by

which the services of the applicant was terminated/retrenched, he has approached this Tribunal by invoking the

provisions of Section 2A of the Act read with section 2A (3) of the Act, so, in view of provisions as provided in

section 2A (3) of the Act, as period of limitation is three years i.e. fixed period of limitation, thus, taking into

consideration the provisions of section 2A(3) of the Act, present claim petition filed by the applicant on 10.09.2018

allegedly aggrieved by the order of termination/retrenchment dated 28.05.2015 is totally illegal and arbitrary and is

barred by period of limitation as provided in the section 2A(3) of the Act.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.

Now the core question to be considered is that in view of the facts which are stated hereinabove, admittedly the

services of applicant was terminated on 16.12.2012 and thereafter he has filed the present case before this Tribunal

u/s 2A of the Act on 22.09.2017, is maintainable or barred by the period of limitation as provided u/s 2A(3)?