2884 GI/2024

(1885)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 19]

नई दिल् ली, मई 12—मई 18, 2024, िजनवार/वैिाख 22—वैिाख 28, 1946

No. 19]

NEW DELHI, MAY 12—MAY 18, 2024, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 22– VAISAKHA 28, 1946

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िै जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में रखा िा सके

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

भागII—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्राल

(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2024

का.आ. 876.—भारती जन ाात-आ ात बैंक अजिजन म, 1981 (1981 का 28) की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा (1) के

खंड (ड.) के उृ-खंड (ii) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री ए. एस. रािीव के

स्ट् ान ृर श्री अजिनी कुमार, प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मु्‍ का ाकारी अजिकारी, ूको बैंक को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आिेिों तक भारती जन ाात-आ ात बैंक (एजजिम बैंक) के बोडा में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै।

[फा. सं. 9/1/2022-आईएफ-I]

अजनल कुमार, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-31052024-254462

CG-DL-W-31052024-254462

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-31052024-254462

CG-DL-W-31052024-254462

1886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2024

S.O. 876.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (e) of Sub-Section (1) of

Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (No. 28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates

Shri Ashwani Kumar, MD & CEO, UCO Bank, as Director on the Board of Export Import Bank of India (Exim Bank)

vice Shri A S Rajeev, with immediate effect and until further orders.

[F. No. 9/1/2022-IF-I]

ANIL KUMAR, Under Secy.

जविेि मन्त्राल

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2024

का.आ. 877.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।

एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, िंघाई में श्री िनराि ृुजन ा और श्री मनीष कुमार िीजक्षत,

िोनों सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी,को मई 09, 2024 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवािन

करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2024(15)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-I)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2024

S.O. 877.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Dhanraj Poonia and

Shri Manish Kumar Dixit, both Assistant Section Officers in the Consulate General of India, Shanghai to perform the

consular services as Assistant Consular Officers with effect from May 09, 2024.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2024(15)]

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

ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गैस मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2024

का.आ. 878.—केन्री सरकार, ृेरोजल म और खजनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार के अिान)

अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में और ृेरोजल म एवं प्राकषजतक गैस मंत्राल ,

भारत सरकार के का. आ. 320, दिनांक 06.03.2023 की अजिसूचना के संिोिन में उि अजिजन म के अिीन कनााटक

राज् के राज् क्षेत्र के भीतर, जिन्िुस्ट् ान ृेरोजल म काृोरेिन जलजमटेड की िासन चेरलाृल्ली एलृीिी ृाइृलाइन

(एच.सी.ृी.एल) के का ा के जलए श्रीमान एच एस सतीि बाबू, जविेष भूजम अिान अजिकारी, कनााटक राज् , को उि

अजिजन म के अंतगात सक्षम प्राजिकारी के का ो का जनवािन करने के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िै।

ि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारीख से लागू िोगी ।

[फा. सं. आर-12030(27)/2/2019-ओ.आर-I/ई-30930)]

ृी. सोमाकुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1887

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2024

S.O. 878.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

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

Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O.No.320 dated 06.03.2023, the Central Government hereby authorizes

Shri. H S Sathish Babu, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Government of Karnataka to perform the functions of

Competent Authority in the State of Karnataka under the said Act for Hassan Cherlapalli LPG Pipeline (HCPL) by

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited.

This notification will be effective from the date of issue

[F. No. R-12030(27)/2/2019-OR-I/E-30930]

P. SOMA KUMAR, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2024

का.आ. 879.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

डीएफसीसी जलजमटेड, प्रगजत मैिान मेरो स्ट्टेिन, नई दिल्ली; मेससा -3097/रंगना रा सुरक्षा एिेंसी, सेजटर-19,

द्वारका, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री सुखजिंिर जसंि, कामगार , द्वारा -कमाकार एकता केंर,

गोजवंि ृुरी, कालकािी, नई दिल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम

न् ा ाल -2 नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभा सं्‍ ा 250 oF 2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै

िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 02.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल - 42025-07-2024-79-आईआर (डी ू)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2024

S.O. 879.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 250 oF 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court–II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to DFCC Ltd., Pragati Maidan Metro Station, New Delhi; M/s. 3097/ Rangnath Rai Security

Agency,Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi, and Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Worker, Through—Karamkar Ekta

Kendra, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 02.05.2024.

[No. L-42025-07-2024-79-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI

ID.NO. 250/2019

Sh. Sukhjinder Singh, S/o. Sh. Karam,

R/o Village – Amritsar, P.O. Soro, P.S. Marhali,

District – Taran Taaran, Punjab,

Through—Karamkar Ekta Kendra,

1888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A – 704, Transit Camp, Saheed Rajeev Gandhi Colony,

Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. …..Claimant / workman

Versus

DFCC Ltd.,

Pragati Maidan Metro Station, New Delhi-110002,

M/s. 3097/Rangnath Rai Security Agency,

Chillar Complex-88, 101, 1^st Floor, Amberahai Extn.,

Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi-110045. ………Managements

AWARD

This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his

termination from the service by the management be declared illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated with full back

wages. It is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working as security guard at his last drawn wages Rs.

23,000/- with the management. One Mr. Bharat Bhushan (Supervisor) took the commission every month Rs. 2000/-

from workman. He has not been provided any legal facilities. Without any rhyme or reason his services were

terminated on 27.03.2019 by the management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he

had filed the present claim petition.

Management no-1 & 2 have not appeared since long and have not participated in the proceedings. They have

been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.04.2022. The AR for the workman is directed to file ex-parte evidence in

support of his claim. Despite providing several opportunities, workman has not brought any evidence to buttress his

claim. Hence, no disputant award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to record room.

A copy of this award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the

I.D. Act 1947.

Date 08^th November, 2023

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 880.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा वेलकम इंडस्ट्रीि जलजमटेड; खेडा टेरला माइंस के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री प्रताृ जसंि के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-36/2015) को िैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै, िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ

ा l

[सं. एल–29012/10/2015-आईआर (एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 880.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

M/s Welcome industries limited; Kheda Terla Mines and Shri Pratap Singh which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.05.2024.

[No. L-29012/10/2015-IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1889

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-izdj.k

la-36/ 2015

jsQjsUl ua--L- 29012/10/2015–IR(M) fnukad 10/04/2015

izrkiflag iq= Jh jkorflag]

eqdke iksLV ikyMh ,e] rglhy f'koxat

ftyk fljksgh & ¼jktLFkku½

cuke

oksydse b.MLVªht fyfeVsM] tfj;s funsZ'kd xkSjkax fla?ky dksiksZjsV vkfQl irk& iksLV ckDl

uEcj 21 bZ 101 esokM b.MLVªht ,fj;k] eknM+h] mn;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ 313003

[ksMk Vsjyk ekbZUl] tfj;s egkizcU/kd oh-ih-igkfM+;k

irk& iksLV fljksgh jksM+] ftyk fljksgh & ¼jktLFkku½

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ugha

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls% Jh jktsUnz xqIrk

vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dh vkSj ls &

% vf/kfu.kZ; %

fnukad % 07-11-2023

Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 10-4-2015 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tk;sxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrXkZr fuEukafdr

vkS|ksfxd fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&

“Whether the action of the management M/s. Welcome Industries Ltd., Udaipur/Khera Tarla Mines,

Sirohi (Raj) in terminating the services of Shri Pratap Singh S/o Sh. Rawat Singh w.e.f. 29.02.2012 is legal

and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled for ?”

izkFkhZ us fnukad 17 flrEcj 2015 dks vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh

}kjk mls le; ls iwoZ lsokfuo`r dj voS/k :Ik ls lsok lekIr dj nh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ us mieq[; Je vk;qDr

dsUnzh; vtesj ds le{k ekax i= izLrqr fd;kA foi{kh }kjk ekax i= dk xyr tokc izLrqr fd;k x;kA nksuksa

i{kksa dh chp le>kSrk okrkZ Hkh djok;h x;h] fdUrq og lQy ugha gqbZA

foi{kh laLFkku~ esa fu;qfDr ds le; ,d QkeZ la[;k 9 Hkjok;k tkrk gS ysfdu foi{kh us bl rF; ls

bUdkj fd;k gSA lsokfuo`fr ds i= fnukad 02 Qjojh 2012 izkFkhZ us ysus ls bUdkj dj fn;k Fkk ysfdu mls

Mjk&/kedkdj i= ysus dks foo'k fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks 29 Qjojh 2012 dks vuqfpr :Ik ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj

fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks pwafd 51 o"kZ dh vk;q esa gh 7 o"kZ iwoZ lsokfuo`Ùk dj fn;k x;k] izkFkhZ dh isa'ku Hkh bl

dkj.k ?kVh gqbZ nj ls cuhA

4- vr% izkFkhZ dks foi{kh laLFkku~ esa iqu% fu;qfDr fnyokbZ tkdj 01 ekpZ 2012 ls leLr foxr ifjykHk fnyok;s

tk;saA

foi{kh us oknksÙkj esa izkFkhZ ds nkos dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks 01 tuojh 1991 dks

QksjeSu ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA ml le; izkFkhZ us viuh tUefrfFk Nqikdj vk;q yxHkx 36&37 o"kZ

crk;h FkhA blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh vk;q 58 o"kZ ekurs gq;s] mls iwoZ lwfpr dj fnukad 29 Qjojh 2012 dks

izkFkhZ dks lsokfuo`Ùk dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us miknku jk'kh ,oa cdk;k NqfV~V;ksa dk Hkqxrku Lohdkj dj fy;kA

lsokfuo`Ùk ds ckn izkFkhZ dks vLFkk;h deZpkjh ds :Ik eas 16 ekpZ 2012 dks iqu% dke ij j[kk x;kA tgka fcuk

fdlh fojks/k ds izkFkhZ 18 fnlEcj 2012 rd yxkrkj dk;Z djrk jgkA mlds ckn dk;Z NksM+dj pyk x;kA izkFkhZ

us dHkh viuh tUefrfFk] lEcfU/kr nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;s vkSj uk gh fookn mBk;kA blfy;s okn pyus ;ksX;

ugha gSA

izkFkhZ us viuh lk{; esa Lo;a izrki flag dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ 1 ls 7 rd

izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA

1890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7- rnqijkar foi{kh us viuh lk{; esa fufru jkt HkVukxj dks izLrqr dj 'kiFki= izLrqr fd;kA fdUrq fnukad

03 vizSy 2019 ls dbZ volj fn;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh izkFkhZ us bl lk{kh ls izfrijh{kk ugha dhA vr% fnukad

2-11-2021 dks foi{kh lk{kh ls izkFkhZ }kjk izfrijh{kk dk volj lekIr dj fn;k x;kA

izkFkhZ i{k dh yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s fnukad 26 vDVwcj 2023 dks eSusa foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd

ds ekSf[kd rdZ lqus vkSj miyC/k lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

9- bl fookn esa fuEukafdr fcUnq fopkj.kh; mRiUUk gq;s gSa %&

1- D;k foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 29 Qjojh 2012 dks vuqfpr :Ik ls lsokfuo`Ùk djrs gq;s lsok lekIr

dj nh xbZ\ ----------izkFkhZA

2- vuqrks"k \

10-

fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k &01

izkFkhZ izrki flag us vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 01 tuojh 1991 dks mldh fu;qfDr

Qksjesu ds in ij gqbZ FkhA ml le; mlls QWkeZ uEcj 9 Hkjok;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us mDr QWkeZ dh QksVksizfr

vius nkos ds vfHkdFku ds lkFk izLrqr dh gSA bl QkWeZ uEcj 9 esa izkFkhZ dh tUefrfFk dk mYYks[k ugha gksdj

01 tuojh 1991 ¼fu;qfDr frfFk½ dks izkFkhZ dh vk;q 30 o"kZ fy[kh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mldh

tUEkfrfFk 01 tuojh 1961 ekurs gq;s 51 o"kZ dh vk;q ds vk/kkj ij isa'ku fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA ;gka ;g mYYks[k

fd;k tkuk vko'k;d gS fd mDr QWkeZ uEcj 9 u rks izkFkhZ }kjk gLrk{kfjr gS vkSj uk gh foi{kh ds fdlh

izkf/kdkjh }kjk izekf.kr gSA oju~ deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/k laxBu ds lgk;d vk;qDr }kjk gLrk{kfjr izrhr gksrk

gS&ftls lqfo/kk ds fy, izn'kZ lh&1 vafdr fd;k gSA

11-

izkFkhZ us viuh izfrijh{kk esa fnukad 07 tuojh 2019 dks Lo;a dh vk;q 58 o"kZ crk;h gSA

vk'p;Ztud :Ik ls izkFkhZ ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd mldh tUe fRkfFk 17 ebZ 1955 gSA fdUrq mlus bl

dFku dk dksbZ izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh us viuh lk{; esa izn'kZ ,e&8 ias'ku vkosnu i= iznf'kZr

fd;k gSA izkFkhZ izrki flag us vius dFku esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldk isa'ku vkosnu QkWeZ izn'kZ ,e&8

mlus Lo;a Hkjk gSA ftl ij mlds gLrk{kj Hkh gSaA ysfdu izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd izn'kZ ,e&8 vkosnu i= esa tUe

frfFk mlus ugha fy[khA

12-

izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ ,e&7 Vh- lh- mlh dh gSA ftlesa tUefrfFk 14 ebZ 1955

lgh gS ;k xyr og ugha dg ldrkA blh izdkj izn'kZ ,e&10 xzke iapk;r ikyM+h }kjk tkjh izek.k&i=

fnukad 02 ebZ 2012 esa izkFkhZ dh vk;q 58 o"kZ gksuk izkFkhZ lgh ekurk gSA foi{kh }kjk izLrqr izn'kZ ,e&8 isa'ku

vkosnu i= izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a gLrk{kj djrs gq;s izLrqr fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl izkFkZuk i= esa

izkFkhZ us viuh tUe frfFk 05 tuojh 1954 fy[kh gS bl izdkj fnukad 04 tuojh 2012 dks gh izkFkhZ dh vk;q

58 o"kZ iw.kZa gks tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA foi{kh ds ikl izkFkhZ dh tUefrfFk lacU/kh dksbZ fo'oluh; izek.k uk gksus

ds dkj.k izkFkhZ Lo;a }kjk of.kZr tUefrfFk Lohdkj dj fy;s tkus ds vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ fodYi ugha FkkA bl

izdkj izkFkhZ Loa; dh LohdkjksfDr ds vk/kkj ij 29 Qjojh 2012 dks fuf'pr :Ik ls 58 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZa dj

pqdk FkkA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk 29 Qjojh 2012 dks izkFkhZ dks lsokfuo`Ùk fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/k izekf.kr

ugha gksrk gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA

13-

fcUnq la[;k 2 pwafd izkFkhZ us viuh Lo;a dh tUefrfFk izn'kZ ,e&8 ias'ku gsrq vkosnu i= esa

05 tuojh 1954 vafdr djrs gq;s foi{kh ls isa'ku gsrq vkosnu fd;kA izkFkhZ dh vk;q fnukad 04 tuojh 2012

dks gh 58 o"kZ ¼lsokfuo`fÙk dh fu;ekuqlkj vk;q½ og iw.kZa dj pqdk FkkA bl izdkj 29 Qjojh 2012 dks izkFkhZ dh

lsokfuo`fÙk fdlh izdkj voS/k ,oa vuqfpr izekf.kr ugha gksrh gS vkSj izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk

vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

14-

Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr vkS|ksfxd fookn dk blh izdkj fu.kZ;u fd;k tkrk gSA

15-

vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds

vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 881.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा बूंिी जसजलका सैंड सप्लाई कंृनी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री बाबू लाल के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1891

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-68/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक

में दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै, िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल–29012/27/2011-आईआर (एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 881.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 68/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

M/s Bundi Silica Sand Supply Company and Shri Babu Lal which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 07.05.2024.

[No. L-29012/27/2011-IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

Reference No. L-29012/27/2011-IR (M) Dated: 21.05.2012

Jh ckcw yky iq= Jh xksih yky] fuoklh& cksj[k.Mh] rglhy& fg.MkSyh] ftyk& cwUnh] ¼jktLFkku½

-------izkFkhZ

1- Jh dUgS;k yky ?kkVhokyk] izca/kd] cMkSfn;k flfydk ls.M LVksu ekbZUl] cwUnh }kjk] eS- cwUnh flfydk ls.M

lIykbZ dEiuh] cMkSfn;k flfydk ls.M LVksu ekbZUl] rglhy& fgUMkSyh] cwUnh] ¼jktLFkku½

--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh

mifLFkr%&

vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr vfHkHkk"kdA

vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % equs’k pUnz 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kdA

1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 04-06-2012 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs

ek= vf/kfu;e dhk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr

vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bundi Silica Sand Supply Company, Kota in

terminating the services of Shri Babu Lal S/o Shri Gopi Lal w.e.f. 05/05/2011 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to? ’’

2- fnukad 03-08-2012 dks izkFkhZ }kjk vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlds laf{kIr vfHkopu bl izdkj

gS% izkFkhZ dks foi{kh }kjk dqN o"kksZ iwoZ ekbUl esa dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA mls nSfud nj ls osru

Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA fnukad 05-05-2011 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks vdkj.k lsok ls gVk fn;kA tks voS/k NaVuh

dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS D;ksafd foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ

1892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks lsok ls gVkus ds mijkar u;s Jfed lsok esa j[k fy;s x;sA vr% izkFkhZ dks foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa

cgky fd;k tk;sA

3- foi{kh us vius oknksRrj esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ nSfud etnwj ds :Ik esa foi{kh ds ;gkWa dk;Z djrk Fkk& fdarq

05-05-2011 dks ;k vU; fdlh fnu izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ls ugha gVk;k& izkFkhZ us 240 fnu rd fujarj dk;Z ugha

fd;kA foi{kh us fdlh fof/kd izko/kku dh vogsyuk ugha dh gS& vr% okn fujLr fd;k tk;sA

4- fnukad 20-11-2019 dks izkFkhZ us viuk 'kiFk i= lk{; esa izLrqr fd;kA rnqijkar fnukad 17-02-2020] 17-12-2020]

14-02-2022] 26-09-2022 o varr% 16-10-2023 dks izkFkhZ Lo;a izfrijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr ugha gqvkA mYys[kuh; gS fd

fnukad 14-02-2022 o 26-09-2022 dks izkFkhZ dks lk{;@ izfrijh{kk gsrq mifLFkr jgus gsrq vfUre volj ds :Ik esa

psrkouh Hkh ns nh xbZ Fkh& fdarq izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks izfrijh{kk gsrq vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;kA 16-10-

2023 dks izkFkhZ dh lk{; dk volj lekIr dj fn;k x;kA vkt Hkh izkFkhZ ;k mlds vfHkHkk"kd mifLFkr ugha

gSaA Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr ,M+- us mifLFkr gksdj izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls mifLFkfr i= ek= izLrqr fd;k o

LFkxu dk fuosnu fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ds d`rs lk{; gsrq volj fn;s tkus dk fuosnu vFkok izkFkhZ dks izfrijh{kk gsrq

izLrqr Hkh ugha fd;k gSA blfy, izdj.k dks LFkfxr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSaA

5- izkFkhZ dk 'kiFk i= mldh eq[; ijh{kk ds :Ik esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSa fdarq foi{kh }kjk dh tkus okyh

izfrijh{kk izkFkhZ dh lrr vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k lEHko ugha gks ik;h gSA blfy, fof/kr% izfrijh{kk ds vHkko esa

izkFkhZ ds l'kiFk dFku lk{; esa xzg.k fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSaA bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ ds

vfHkopuksa dks izkFkhZ }kjk fdlh lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS& izkFkhZ ds fdlh lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g

izekf.kr ugha gks ik;k gS fd fnukad 05-05-2011 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok vof/kiw.kZ jhfr ls lekIr dh xbZ

gSA bl rF; ds izekf.kr ugh gksus ij izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ugha gqvk

gSA

6- dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSaA

7- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk’kukFkZ izsf"kr dh

tk;sA

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 882.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

मेससा बूंिी जसजलका सैंड सप्लाई कंृनी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री लटूर लाल के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट

केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-71/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक

[सं. एल–29012/9/2012-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 882.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 71/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

M/s Bundi Silica Sand Supply Company and Shri Latur Lal which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 07.05.2024.

[No. L-29012/9/2012-IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

Reference No. L-29012/9/2012-IR (M) Dated: 04.06.2012

Jh yVwj yky iq= Jh ih: yky] tkfr& xqtZj] fuoklh& cksj[k.Mh] rglhy& fg.MkSyh] ftyk& cwUnh] ¼jktLFkku½

-------izkFkhZ

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1893

2- Jh

dUgS;k

yky

?kkVhokyk]

izca/kd]

cMkSfn;k

flfydk

ls.M

LVksu

ekbZUl]

cwUnh

}kjk]

eS- cwUnh flfydk ls.M lIykbZ dEiuh] cMkSfn;k flfydk ls.M LVksu ekbZUl] rglhy& fgUMkSyh] cwUnh] ¼jktLFkku½

--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh

mifLFkr%&

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA

vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % equs’k pUnz 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kdA

1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 04-06-2012 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs

ek= vf/kfu;e dhk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr

vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Bundi Silica Sand Supply Company, Kota in

terminating the services of Shri Latur Lal S/o Shri Piru Lal w.e.f. 05/04/2010 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to? ’’

2- rnqijkar izkFkhZ us fnukad 03-08-2012 dks vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k ftlds laf{kIr dFku bl izdkj gS%

izkFkhZ dks vizsy] 1989 esa foi{kh }kjk nSfud osru ij dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA fdarq fnukad

05-04-2010 dks foi{kh us vdkj.k izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ls gVk fn;kA izkFkhZ dks bl izdkj lsok ls gBkus ds iwoZ dksbZ

uksfVl] uksfVl osru ;k NaVuh dk eqvkotk] Hkh foi{kh us ugha fn;k& bl izdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds

izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfeadks dks lsok esa gh j[kk

x;k& vkSj izkFkhZ dks volj ugha fn;k& vr% izkFkhZ dks foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;k tk;sA

3- foi{kh us 09-05-2013 dks oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us o"kZ 2008 esa 54 fnu] 2009 esa

150 fnu o o"kZ 2010 esa 50 fnu dk;Z fd;k o bl vof/k dk osru izkIr dj fy;k& izkFkhZ us Lo;a gh dk;Z ij

vkuk can dj fn;k& og viuh bPNk ls gh dke ij vkrk Fkk& foi{kh us ugha gVk;kA foi{kh us fdlh fof/kd

izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k gS& vr% okn vLohdkj fd;k tkos fnukad 20-02-2017 ls 17-11-2021 rd izkFkhZ

dh lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZA fnukad 14-02-2022 dks izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd }kjk vf/kdj.k dks ekSf[kd :Ik ls

lwfpr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dk nsgkar gks x;k gS& rFkk og izkFkhZ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij

izR;kLFkkfir djokus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djuk pkgrs gSaA fdarq dksbZ izkFkZuk i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA fnukad

29-09-2022 dks Hkh vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ us viuk dFku iqujko`r fd;k rFkk vf/kdj.k }kjk iwokZuqlkj izkFkZuk i= izLrqr

djus gsrq volj iznku fd;k x;kA fnukad 16-10-2023 dks izkFkhZ ;k mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dh vksj ls dksbZ

mifLFkr ugha Fkk&fQj Hkh U;k;fgr esa vfUre volj nsrs gq, izdj.k vkt fu;r fd;k x;kA vkt Hkh izkFkhZ

¼e`rd½ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k ;k mudh vksj ls izkf/kd`r dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr ugha gSA Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr ,M+- us

e`rd izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd Jh dfiy 'kekZ dh vksj ls mifLFkr i= vkt izLrqr fd;k gSA fdarq Jh dfiy 'kekZ

,M- dks ftl O;fDr us izkf/kd`r fd;k Fkk og thfor ugha gS& blfy, Jh dfiy 'kekZ ,M- dks Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr

,M+- dks e`rd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mifLFkfr nsus gsrq izkf/kd`r djus dk vf/kdkj 'ks"k ugha jgk gSA

4- bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa pwfda izkFkhZ }kjk nkos ds leFkZu gsrq u rks dksbZ lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS&vkSj u gh mlds

LFkku ij dksbZ fof/kd izfrfuf/k ¼pwfda izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd }kjk vf/kdj.k dks izkFkhZ dh e`R;q gks tkuk lwfpr fd;k x;k

gS½ izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij vius i{k ds vxzlj.k gsrq mifLFkr gqvk gS& bl vf/kdj.k ds vf/ker ls izkFkhZ ¼e`rd½ ds i{k

esa ;g izekf.kr ugha gks ldk gS fd fnukad 05-04-2010 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks vfof/kiw.kZ jhfr ls lsok ls gVk fn;k

x;k gksA blfy, izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA

5- dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dk vf/kfu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSaA

6- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk;sA

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 883.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अिोक कुमार गगा के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री

1894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , ि ृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-16/2001) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखा ा ग ा िै, प्रकाजित करती िै, िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. एल–30012/157/2000-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 16/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

Oil Corporation and Shri Ashok Kumar Garg which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 07.05.2024.

[No. L-30012/157/2000-IR (M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh

Reference No. L-30012/157/2000-IR (M) Dated: 13.03.2001

Jh v'kksd dqekj xxZ iq= Jh c`teksgu xqIrk] fuoklh& esgrkc flag th dk pkSjkgk] xks;y VsUV gkml ds ikl] ftyk&

vyoj] ¼jktLFkku½A

-------izkFkhZ

1- bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksjs'ku] vkbZ- vks- lh- IykV ua-& 348&349 b.MLVªh;y ,sfj;k iks- vkdsl fHkokM+h] ftyk&

t;iqjA

2- bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksjs'ku] vkbZ- vks- lh- f'koVh bZLV iwoZ] eqEcbZ] 400015

3- bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksjs'ku] vkbZ- vks- lh- xys.Mj gkml 8] usrkth lqHkk"k pUnz jksM+] dydRrk] 700001

--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh

mifLFkr%&

% Jh lqjs'k d';i] vfHkHkk'kd izkFkhZA

% Jh vkj- lh- tks'kh] vfHkHkk'kd foi{khx.kA

1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 13-03-2001 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs

ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr

vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&

“Whether the action of the management of M/s I.B.P. Co. Ltd., Bhiwani Distt. Alwar in

terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, fitter is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled? ’’

2- fnukad 18-11-2019 dks ;g ns[krs gq;s fd vkbZ- ch- ih- dEiuh fy- dk foy; bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksjsu esa gks pqdk

gS] bl fookn ds lE;d U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq vkbZ- ch- ih- dEiuh ds LFkku ij bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksjs'ku dks

izR;kLFkkfir fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k rn~uqlkj izkFkhZ us la'kksf/kr okn 'kh"kZd izLrqr fd;kA

3- izkFkhZ us vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa ;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa fnuakd 12-08-1993 dks gqbZ

FkhA izkFkhZ dk uke jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls Hkstk x;k Fkk vkSj lk{kkRdkj esa mRrhZ.k gksus ds ckn fQVj ds in ij

fu;qfDr gqbZ FkhA fnukad 31-07-1994 dks foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk fn;kA lsok lekfIr ls igys dksbZ

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1895

dkj.k ugha crk;k rFkk fcuk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru rFkk NaVuh eqvkotk fn;s lsok ls gVk;k x;kA bl izdkj

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk foi{kh us ugha dhA

4- izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus ds iwoZ dksbZ ofj"Vrk lwph foi{kh us ugha cukbZ tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼G½ ds vUrxZr

voS/k gSA izkFkhZ ftl in ij dk;Zjr Fkk og LFkkbZ izd`fr dk in Fkk ysfdu foi{kh tkucw> dj 'kks"k.k djus ds

fy, izkFkhZ dh lsok vof/k c<+krk jgk] tks fd vuqfpr Je vH;kl dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA izkFkhZ us ,d dyS.Mj

o"kZ esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA lsok eqfDr ds mijkar izkFkhZ csjkstxkj cSBk gS rFkk vk; dk

dksbZ lk/ku ugha gSA blfy, okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s foxr osru o lsok

ifjykHkksa lfgr cgky fd;k tk;sA

5- foi{khx.k ¼bafM;u vkW;y dkjiksjs'ku½ us fnukad 13-05-2013 dks vaxzsth esa oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k ftlds fgUnh esa

vuqfnr laf{kIr dFku bl izdkj gS% izkFkhZ 1600 :- osru izkIr dj jgk Fkk blfy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼s½ ds

vUrxZr og deZdkj ugha gS rFkk vf/kdj.k dks ;g fookn lquus dk {kS=kf/kdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ us vU; 8 deZdkjksa

ds lkFk ,d fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh Fkh tks vLohdkj dj nh xbZ] izkFkhZ us ;g rF;

fNik;k gSA vkbZ- ch- ih- dEiuh dk izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k u"V fd;k tk pqdk gSA vkSj ;g oknksRrj fjV

;kfpdk esa izLrqr vfHkopuksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ :Ik ls 22-06-1993 dks ¼fjV ;kfpdk esa izkFkhZ }kjk

fd;s x;s vfHkopu ds vuqlkj½ fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dh vLFkkbZ fu;qfDr dk mYys[k fu;qfDr vkns’k esa gSA

vkbZ- ch- ih- dEiuh us 26-07-1994 dks ,d i= tkjh fd;k Fkk vkSj izkFkhZ ls ;g dgk Fkk fd og tqykbZ 1994 dk

osru o vU; ns; jkf'k;kWa izkIr dj ldrk gSA uksfVl ds cnys 3 eghuksa dk osru vfrfjDr :Ik ls izkFkhZ dks Hkstk

x;kA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr vof/k 31-07-1994 rd FkhA fdarq izkFkhZ us ;g jkf'k Lohdkj ugha dh tks ckn esa MªkW¶V

cukdj Hksth xbZA vkbZ- ch- ih- dEiuh vc vfLrRo esa ugha gSaA vkbZ- ch- ih- dEiuh }kjk izkFkhZ dks 31-07-1994 ds

mijkar fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;kA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tk;sA

6- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls 28-04-2014 dks vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr fd;s x;s ftles mlus ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k

izLrqr ;kfpdk esa fu.kZ; u gksus dk rF; tkudkjh ds vHkko esa of.kZr ugha djuk dgk rFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd izkFkhZ

dks uksfVl osru] uksfVl eqvkotk ugha fn;k x;k u izkFkhZ us ysus ls euk fd;kA

7- fnukad 08-10-2014 dks izkFkhZ v'kksd dqekj xxZ us lk{; esa viuk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; ds

:Ik esa izn’kZ& W-1 ls W-7 rd izn'kZ izysf[kr fd;sA

8- foi{kh us vius lk{; esa euh’k flUgk] tujy eSustj dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa izn'kZ R-1

ls R-7 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA

9- fnukad 30-10-2023 o 01-11-2023 dks esaus mHk; i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdksZ] miyC/k lk{; ,oa izLrqr fd;s x;s

fuEukfdar U;kf;d n`"Vªkrksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k ij euu fd;kA

10- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar%

¼1½

1981 (II) LLJ 70 (SC)

RLR 1988

R.S.R.T.C.

2 SCC 423

JT 2018 (9) SC 243 the Management Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D Ranchi v/s Their

Workmen Representative District Secretary.

AIR (SC)

4 SCC 447

12- bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mHk; i{k ds vfHkopuksa ,oa rdZ ij euu ds mijkar mRiUu gq;s gSa%

D;k foi{kh }kjk 31-07-1994 dks gqbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kkuksa dh lE;d vuqikyuk u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr voS/k gS\

-------------izkFkhZ

D;k foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ ofj"Brk lwph u cukus ds vk/kkj

ij lsok eqfDr voS/k gS\

D;k izkFkhZ ds deZdkj u gksus ds dkj.k bl vf/kdj.k dks fookn dk Jo.kkf/kdkj

izkIr ugha gS\

1896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13-

¼1½ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr

12-08-1993 dks fu;ekuqlkj fQVj ds in ij foi{kh laLFkku esa gqbZ FkhA mls fcuk dkj.k fnukad 31-07-1994 dks

fcuk dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru fn;s ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;kA mlus eku- mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk nk;j dh

tks 28-01-2009 dks Lohd`r gqbZA izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd og foi{kh ds v/khu LFkkbZ izd`fr dk dk;Z djrk

FkkA foi{kh vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl ds rgr lsok vof/k c<krk jgkA mlus 240 fnu ls T;knk dk;Z fd;k gSA

ysfdu izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 12-08-1993 dk fu;qfDr i= i=koyh ij ugha gSA

mls fu;qfDr dh 'krsZ Hkh ;kn ugha gSA izkFkhZ us ;}fi bl lq>ko dks vLohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr

fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds fy;s o vLFkkbZ Fkh fdarq izkFkhZ vkxkeh dFku esa ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd izn'kZ W-6 i= mldh

fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk bl i= esa of.kZr 'krsZ mls Lohdkj FkhA izn'kZ W-6 i= foi{kh ¼I.B.P. Co.½ }kjk

fnukad 21-02-1994 dks izkFkhZ dks lackf/kr dj fy[kk x;k gSA bl i= esa fo"k; ds vUrxZr ¼Temporary

Appointment½ 'kCnkoyh fy[kh xbZ gS vkSj ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij 4 ekg ds fy;s

fnukad 12-02-1994 ls lesfdr osru 1450@& :- ij fuEukfdar 'krksZ lfgr fu;qDr fd;k x;k gSA 'krZ

la- ¼2½ ¼A) esa ;g 'krZ of.kZr gS gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok;s i= esa vafdr vof/k ds lekiu ij Lor% lekIr gks

tk;saxhA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh Lo;a dh LohdkjksfDr gS fd mls 4 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, foi{kh }kjk fu;qDr x;k

FkkA izkFkhZ us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 05-05-1994 dks mldk vkf[kjh fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh gqvk

Fkk mlds ckn dksbZ vkns'k ugha feykA ;g egRoiw.kZ gS fd mDr 05-05-1994 dks tkjh fu;qfDr vkns'k izkFkhZ us

LosPN;k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS vkSj ek= ;g dgk gS fd ?;ku esa u jgus ls izLrqr ugha fd;kA

¼2½

;gk ;g mYys[k djuk vlaxr ugha gksxk fd foi{kh us vius oknksRrj esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd

I.B.P. Co. vc vfLrRo esa ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k Weedout fd;k tk pqdk gSA foi{kh dk

oknksRrj izkFkhZ }kjk mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk ds lkFk izLrqr fd;s x;s izys[kksa vkSj I.B.P. Co. }kjk

izLrqr fd;s x;s fjV ;kfpdk ds mRrj ij vk/kkfjr gSA foi{kh us vius lk{; esa izkFkhZ }kjk mPp U;k;ky; ds

le{k izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ R-2 iznf'kZr dh gSA ftlds iSjk 10 esa izkFkhZ us ;g dFku fd;k

gS fd foi{kh }kjk mudh lsok esa vfUre ckj foLrkj] i= fnukad 26-04-1994 }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj foi{khx.k

us ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd ;kphx.k dh lsok esa vc foLrkj ugha fd;k tkosxk rFkk fnukad 31-07-1994 ls mudh lsok

lekIr gks tk;sxhA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mldh fjV ;kfpdk esa fd;s x;s bu dFkuksa dk dksbZ [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;kA

;g vo’; gS fd lsok foLrkj i= fnukad 26-04-1994 ds LFkku ij izkFkhZ us =qfViwoZd 05-05-1994 frfFk of.kZr dj

nh gSA bl foospu ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izn’kZ W-6 foi{khx.k ds i= fnukad 21-02-1994 ds Ik'pkr

26-04-1994 ds i= }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok vof/k esa foLrkj fd;k x;k FkkA D;kasfd izn’kZ W-6 i= ds vuqlkj rks]

12-02-1994 ls 4 ekg dh vof/k 12-06-1994 dks gh lekIr gks jgh FkhA blfy, 26-04-94 dks lsok foLrkj djrs

gq;s lsok vof/k 31-07-1994 fu/kkZfjr dj nh xbZA

¼3½

izkFkhZ us vius leZFku esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk eksgu yky cuke Hkkjr bysDVªksfuDl fy- ds

fu.kZ; esa ikfjr fof/k dk voyac fy;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us bl fu.kZ; esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd

tc rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij deZdkj dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ds vUrxZr of.kZr fdlh viokfnr

dksfV esa ugha vkrh gks rks ,slh lsok lekfIr NaVuh dgykrh gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ esa of.kZr iwokZisf{kr

'krksZa dh vuqikyuk u fd;s tkus ij NaVuh ds :Ik esa dh xbZ ,slh lsok lekfIr izkjaHk ls gh voS/k o 'kwU; gksrh

gSA

¼4½

bl fof/k ds izdk'k esa] rF;ksa dk ijh{k.k bl laca/k esa fd;k tkuk vko’;d gS fd] izkFkhZ dh lsok

lekfIr] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ds vUrxZr of.kZr viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa rks ugha vkrh\

¼5½

izkFkhZ us vius izfrijh{k.k esa izn'kZ W-6 i= dks fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa laEiw.kZ :Ik ls lohdkj fd;k gSA

blh izdkj izkFkhZ us lsok vof/k ds foLrkj ds laca/k esa =qfViwoZd 26-04-1994 ds LFkku ij 05-05-1994 dks foi{kh

ds i= }kjk lsok dk foLrkj djrs gq;s 31-07-1994 rd lsok vof/k c<k;s tkus dk rF; Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA

izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lsok foLrkj dh 'krZ mls ;kn ugha gSA bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; esa Li"V :Ik

ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ :Ik ls ,d fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, ,deq'r osru ij fu;qDr fd;k

x;k FkkA tcfd izLrqr fd;s x;s fof/kd n`"Vkar eksgu yky cuke Hkkjr bysDVªksfuDl fy- esa ekuuh; loksZPp

U;k;ky; ds le{k ,d ,sls deZdkj dk izdj.k fopkj.kh; Fkk ftls fu;kstd }kjk ifjoh{kk ij izFke ckj esa

6 ekg ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA bl fof/kd n`"Vkar ds rF;ksa esa deZdkj dh fu;qfDr ,d fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds

mijkar Lor% lekIr gks tkus dh 'krZ ugha FkhA ifjoh{kk dky ds lQy lekiu ij deZdkj dks LFkkbZ :Ik ls

fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh laHkkouk Hkh vfLrRo esa FkhA blds foijhr izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ :Ik ls ,d fuf'kpr vof/k ds

fy, fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk tks fd mldk ifjoh{kk dky dnkfi ugha FkkA rnqijkar izkFkhZ dh lsok esa foLrkj ,d

fuf'pr frfFk 31-07-1994 rd fd;k x;kA bl izdkj gLrxr fookn ds rF; vkSj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds

fu.kZ; esa of.kZr rF; lqfHkUu gSaA bl rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa

izfrikfnr fof/k dks eSa lalEeku izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lgk;d ugha ikrk gwWaA

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1897

¼6½

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ds Ik'pkr og 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh

lsok foi{kh ds v/khu dj pqdk gSA blfy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds vUrxZr lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ 1 ekg dk

uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ;k NaVuh izfrdj fn;k tkuk vko’;d FkkA bl izko/kku dh ikyuk u gksus ls lsok

lekfIr voS/k gSA bl laca/k esa izn'kZ R-2, fjV ;kfpdk dh izekf.kr izfr ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vU; 8

O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk la;qDr :Ik ls ,d fjV ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh Fkh vksj mlesa

foi{kh ds fo:} ;g vuqrks'k ekWxk x;k fd os lsok lekfIr ds vkns'k ¼ekSf[kd½ 31-07-1994 dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr dj

vikLr djsaA bl fjV ;kfpdk dks ;|fi ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ ds lanHkZ esa fu.khZr ugha fd;k x;k

rFkk izn'kZ R-2, vkns'k fnukad 22-08-1994 }kjk ek= ;kph la- 1 deythr ds laUnHkZ esa fu.khZr x;k gSA mDr

;kph deythr }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk bl vk/kkj ij vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS

fd ;kph dks viuk fof/kd vf/kdkj LFkkfir djrs gq;s mldk guu fd;k tkuk izekf.kr djuk pkfg;s] ysfdu

;kph vius fof/kd vf/kdkj dh LFkkiuk gh ugha dj ik;k gS] blfy, mls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; mPp

U;k;ky; us bl vkns'k esa ;g Li"V :Ik ls of.kZr fd;k gS fd ;kph dk fu;qfDr vkns'k fnukad 21-02-1994 vkSj

lsok foLrkj vkns'k 24-04-1994 ikfjr djrs gq;s lsok vof/k ek= 31-07-1994 rd c<kbZ xbZ FkhA bl izdkj lsok

dh lafonk 31-07-1994 rd gh oS/k Fkh mlds Ik’pkr ;kph dks lsok esa cus jgus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha jgkA

¼7½

;kph deythr vkSj izkFkhZ ds laca/k esa lHkh rF; leku gaS] blfy, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k

izn'kZ R-2, esa izfrikfnr fn'kk funsZ'k dks bl fookn ds rF;ksa ij izHkkoh Lohdkj fd;k tkuk fof/kr% visf{kr gSA

bl foospu ds mijkar izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr vLFkkbZ :Ik ls fnukad 31-07-1994 rd dh fuf'pr vof/k dh lsok

lafonk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA blfy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ dh mi/kkjk ¼bb½ ds varxZr

of.kZr viokfnr ifjfLFkfr bl fookn ds rF;ksa ij izHkkoh gSA pwfda lsok lafonk ds vUrxZr lsok vof/k dk

i;kZolku 31-07-1994 dks gqvk blfy, ;g lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh gksuk

izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA

¼8½

pwfda izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ

/kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kku dk vuqikyu djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh

izfrdj dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj visf{kr ugha gSA

¼9½

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fof/kd n`"Vkar 'kaHkw n;ky cuke R.S.R.T.C. ¼jktLFkku½] Jhjke QVhZykbZtj ,oa

dSehdYl cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bafM;k o vU; o the Management Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D Ranchi v/s

Their Workmen Through Representative District Secretary] ,oa jkeeuksgj yksfg;k tkWbZUV gkLihVy ,.M vU;

cuke eqUuk izlkn lSuh o vU; esa izfrikfnr fof/k tks fd voS/k NaVuh gksus ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds

izko/kkuksa ds vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ls lacaf/kr fof/k gS] bl fookn esa izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr NaVuh ds ek/;e ls

fd;k tkuk izekf.kr u gksus ij] rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k llEeku iz;ksT; ugha gSA

¼10½

mi;qDrZ foospu ds mijkar izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr djus esa foQy jgk gS fd fnukad 31-07-1994 dks dh xbZ

lsok lekfIr voS/k NaVuh ds :Ik esa foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ] oju ;g izekf.kr gqvk gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½

¼bb½ dh viokfnr ifjLFkfr ds varxZr izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ,d fuf’pr vof/k dh lsok lafonk ds vk/kkj ij gqbZ

Fkh] ftlds lekiu ij Lor% gqbZ lsok lekfIr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS vkSj foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds izko/kkuksa dh vuqikyuk fd;k tkuk fof/kr% visf{kr ugha FkkA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr

fd;k tkrk gSA

14-

¼1½ izkFkhZ us vius ’kiFk i= fnukad 17-09-2002 esa dgk gSa fd mls lsok ls gVkus ds

iwoZ foi{kh us dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cukbZ vkSj mls lsok eqDr dj fn;kA rRi'pkr fnukad 08-10-2014 dks iqu%

izLrqr 'kiFk i= esa ofj"Brk lwph ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ us dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k gS& mYys[kuh; gS fd blh 'kiFk i=

ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ls izfrijh{kk dh xbZ gaSA bl lanHkZ esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vf/kfu;e dh

/kkjk 25 ¼G½ o fu;e 77 ds izko/kkuksa dk iz;kstu rHkh visf{kr gS tc fdlh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku }kjk deZdkj dh

NaVuh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gks& ;fn lsok lekfIr dh jhfr NaVuh ls fHkUu gks rks /kkjk 25 ¼G½ o fu;e 77 ds

izko/kku ,slh lsok lekfIr ds laca/k esa iz;ksT; ugha gksxsaA

fcanq la- 1 ds vUrxZr izkIr foosfpr fu"d"kZ ds izdk'k esa ;g izekf.kr ik;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr

NaVuh ds :Ik esa ugha gqbZ gS& blfy, foi{kh ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼G½ o fu;e 77 ds izko/kkuksa dh

vuqikyuk fd;s tkus dh vis{kk fof/k lEer ugha gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fu.kZ; thrwHkk

[kkulaxth tMstk cuke dPN fMfLVªDV iapk;r esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k rF;kRed

fHkUurk ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dk i{k iq"V ugha djrh gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

15-

bl fook/kd dk flf}Hkkj foi{kh ij gSA fdarq rdZ ds nkSjku foi{kh dh vksj ls bl

fcUnq ds laca/k esa dksbZ rdZ izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s& u gh foi{kh us lk{; ds nkSjku l'kiFk dksbZ dFku fd;sA ,slk

izrhr gksrk gS fd izyf{kr :Ik ls foi{kh }kjk ml fcUnq ij dksbZ cy ugh fn;k x;k gS& vr% izkFkhZ dks deZdkj

gksuk izekf.kr ekurs gq,& ;g fcUnq foi{kh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

1898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok

lekfIr fnukad 31-07-1994 oS/k ,oa mfpr izekf.kr gqbZ gSA vr% izkFkhZ foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk

vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

17- Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr vkS|ksfxd fookn dk U;k;fu.kZ;u blh izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

18- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh

tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 884.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार

दिल्ली इंटरनेिनल ए रृोटा जलजमटेड; सेलेबी दिल्ली कागो टर्मानल मैनेिमेंट इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससा डेल्टा

जसज ोररटीि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ज्वाला जसंि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्री

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-5/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[सं. िेड–16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-34]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 5/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Delhi International Airport Ltd; Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd; M/s Delta

Securities pvt. Ltd. and Shri Jawala Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 07.05.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR (M)-34]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1

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

ID No. 5/2020

Sh. Jawala Singh S/o Sh. Chander Sekhar,

R/o K.D.R. Colony Building no.1, Room no. 15,

Rangpuri, Mahipalpur, New Delhi

Through Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union (regd.) H.O. D2/24,

Sultanpuri, Delhi

Claimant…

Versus

1. Vice President,

Delhi International Airport Ltd.

Udaan, Airport Terminal-3

New Delhi.

2. Managing Director,

Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.,

M Number-CEO, 5th Floor,

Import Building, Building 11 Building International Cargo Terminal

IGI Airport, Delhi-37.

3. Managing Director,

M/s Delta Securities Pvt. Ltd.,

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1899

159, Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh,

Near PNB Bank,

Dhaula Kuan,

New Delhi.

Management…

None for the claimant

None for the management

AWARD

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

No. ND.96(22)2019-ID-FOC-DY.CLC dated 10.12.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the services of the workman Sh. Jawala Singh S/o Sh. Chander Sekhar were terminated in an illegal

and unjustified manner by M/s Delta Securities Pvt. Ltd. In the establishment of DAIL/ M/s Celebi Delhi

Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi w.e.f 25.10.2018? If yes, whether the workman is

entitled reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits? What other relief the workman is

entitled to?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adjudication of the reference on merits.

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

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

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

Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer

Date: 28.11.2023

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024

का.आ. 885.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल

(सन्िभा सं्‍ ा

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल–22012/81/2017-आईआर(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024

S.O. 885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. I.D. No. 14/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06 /05/2024.

[No. L-22012/81/2017-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

1900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 14 OF 2017

PARTIES: Muslim Mia

Vs.

Management of Satgram Incline of ECL and Another.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

: None.

For the Management of ECL

: Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

10.04.2024

AWARD

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

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

No. L-22012/81/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 09.11.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Satgram Incline

under Satgram Area in not paying the applicable House Rent Allowance to Sri Muslim Mia from February 2008 is

just and legal? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/81/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 09.11.2017 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 14 of 2017 was registered on

21.11.2017 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up today for

ex-parte hearing. On call at 12.45 p.m. Muslim Mia, the aggrieved workman as well as representative of Koyala

Khadan Sharamik Congress, Union are found absent without representation.

On a perusal of the record, I find that management filed their written statement on 10.02.2023, after a

period of six years, wherein it is stated that Muslim Mia was allotted quarters at New Satgram Colliery prior to

January 2008 and he handed over the quarters to the company in November 2007 vide office order

No. ECL/SP/PER/Housing/Allotment/2007/2736 dated 28/30.11.2007. Said quarters was therefore allotted to

Shri Krishna Behera, another employee of the company. It has been ascertained that according to circular issued by

Eastern Coalfields Limited (Headquarters) bearing No. ECL/CMO/C-6/WBE-1/489 dated 28.06.2006 which was

reissued vide No. ECL/CMD/C-6E/10/613 on 16.07.2012, Muslim Mia is not entitled to House Rent Allowance.

Notice was issued to Muslim Mia at his given address but same were returned on two occasions with endorsement

that he left for his home. In my considered view sufficient opportunity was given to the aggrieved workman and union

but they failed to file written statement and did not turn up for adducing necessary evidence. Without going into the

merits and validity of the circular issued from the Headquarters of Eastern Coalfields Limited for disallowing the

House Rent Allowance, this case is disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award on default of the workman. Let a

No Dispute Award be drawn up accordingly.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1901

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024

का.आ. 886.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरीखानी ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल–22013/01/2024-आईआर(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024

S.O. 886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/04/2024.

[No. 22013/01/2024-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 1^stDAY OF MARCH, 2024.

I.D. No. 02 of 2022

Between:-

Merugu Ramesh, S/o. Laxminaryana, Age:39 Years, E.C.No.2374049, Ex-Badli Worker, ALP-APA, R/o.Qr.No.SD-

485, Bhagathsingh Nagar, Ramakrishnapur, Mandal: Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

….Petitioner/Workman

AND

The Colliery Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Adriyala Longwall Project, RG-III

Area, Adriyala Project Area, Ramagundam Area-III, Centenary Colony, Ramagiri Mandal,

District Peddapalli (T.S).

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Adriyala Project Area, Ramagundam

Area-III, Centenary Colony, Ramagiri Mandal, District Peddapalli (T.S)

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

District Khammam (T.S).

…. Respondents/Management

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Javvaji Srinivas, Advocate for the

Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act praying to set aside the dismissal order dt.19.04.2019 passed

by the Respondent No.2 and direct the Respondents’ Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with

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

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

2(a). The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler by respondents' company under dependant employment scheme in

place of his father Sri Laxminarayana, Ex-Elec. Helper of SRP Area, through Office Order dt.20.04.2007. He was

posted to Mandamarri Area and he completed the Basic Job Training at MVTC, Mandamarri. Thereupon, he reported

before the RK.1A-Incline, M.M Area as per Office Order dt.06.07.2007. Ever since the date of his appointment, the

1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

petitioner was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of all his superiors, without any kind of adverse

remarks. He served the respondents' company effectively and rendered (12) years long service. He put-in more than

(100) required musters per year and he was transferred to Adriyala Long Wall Project of the respondent No.1 and 2.

But, the atmosphere and gases of the said mine did not suit his health and he suffered from chronic ill-health, severe

joint pains and body pain from 2014 onwards. He underwent prolonged medical treatment in the respondents'

Company Hospitals and other referral hospitals at regular intervals. But, due to underground work, his health was not

cured completely and due to the indifferent attitude of the respondents and disregard to his chronic ill-health, he

continued to work in the underground on one hand and undergoing treatment frequently on the other hand, due to

which, his health completely deteriorated from 2014. Due to the above problems, he could not put-in the required

(100) musters during the year 2016. But, without considering the above, the respondents have issued charge sheet

dt.25.02.2017 to the petitioner alleging:-

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

"25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying

beyond sanctioned leave"

2(b). There is no deliberate or intentional absence on the part of the petitioner, there is reasonable and sufficient cause

for his not attending to duties regularly and for putting less musters during the charge sheet period of 2016. But, the

respondent No.2 dismissed the petitioner from service through Ref.No.RG.3/PERIRI48/DA-828/1325, dt.19.04.2019,

with effect from 25.04.2019, illegally which is highly arbitrary and against the basic principles of natural justice. The

petitioner submitted his satisfactory explanation dt.28.02.2017 to the charge sheet, but, domestic enquiry was

conducted while he was undergoing treatment. He participated in the enquiry on 04.09.2017, deposed the above true

facts of his ill-health and his family problems and also submitted Medical Certificates. But, the enquiry officer did not

properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence in favour of the petitioner. The findings of the enquiry Officer

are very cryptic and he gave his vague findings, which are quite biased and perverse. The Respondent No.2 required

the petitioner to make representation on the findings of Enquiry Officer by letter dt.21.11.2017, to which he submitted

detailed representation dt.07.12.2017. He improved his attendance during the years 2018 and 2019 and put-in (68)

physical muster in (03) months till March 2019. But, the respondent No.2 unjustly dismissed him from service by

order dt.19.04.2019 straight away, without issuing any prior Show Cause Notice proposing the said capital

punishment of dismissal from service.

2(c). The petitioner preferred Appeal (03) times and moved from pillar to post before the respondents, but there is no

response from the company and he was not taken to duty. His health condition badly deteriorated and he suffered

from serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period. However, he improved his attendance during the years 2018

and 2019 and put-in (68) physical muster in (03) months i.e., till March, 2019. As such, it cannot be termed as

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

period. Further, imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service without any prior show cause notice

proposing the capital punishment is against the settled Law and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is a

clear case of unfair Labour practice and victimization and the extremely harsh punishment of dismissal from service is

highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which amounts to economic death of the petitioner. Ever since his

unjust dismissal from service, he could not secure any other alternative job and remained unemployed. He lost lively

hood and incurred huge debts for his medical and domestic expenses and he is facing lot of hard ship and misery to

eke out lively hood for his family members. This Court has got every jurisdiction to try the case U/Sec.2-(A) (2) of

I.D. Act, as per the settled law declared by the Hon'ble High Court and this Court has wide powers U/Sec.11-A of I.D.

Act to grant every relief to the poor petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to the set aside the dismissal Order dt.19.04.2019

passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents' company to reinstate the petitioner into service with

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

3. On the other side, the Respondents’/Company has submitted counter by admitting the employment of

Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents’-Company and inter-alia contended that the petitioner was appointed as

badli-filler on 12.07.2007 under the dependant employment scheme and posted to work at Rk1A incline Mandamari

Area as per office order dt.06.07.2007. The petitioner was a chronic absentee had not put the required musters in any

calendar year though out his service. The service of the employees of the respondent company are governed by

company standing orders and according to section 52(2) of the Mines Act 1952 an underground employee is required

to put in minimum musters of (190) and surface employee has to put (240) musters in a calendar year. But the

petitioner/employee being a chronic absentee had never put-in required musters since his appointment. The attendance

particulars of the petitioner are as follows:-

Sl.No.

Year

Musters put in by the petitioner

2008

2009

103

2010

110

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1903

2011

100

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

10.

2017

11.

2018

12.

2019

3(b). The petitioner was issued with charge sheet dt.02.02.2013 under clause 25:31 but no action was taken and he

was once again issued Charge Sheets for his absenteeism during the years 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016 vide Letters

dt:02.02.2014, 10.01.2015 and dt:20.01.2016, but no action was taken for the charge sheets. As the petitioner was not

attending duties, the respondent company has also conducted counselling on 09.06.2014 and he attended with family

members and has given written explanation on 09.06.2014 stating the he has financial problems and he assured to put

in (23) musters in every month thereafter. But he did not change his attitude and failed to attend duties regularly. In

the due course as the petitioner failed to put-in required musters, he was again issued a charge sheet dt.25.02.2017, it

was received and he submitted his explanation dt.28.02.2017 which was found not satisfactory. The petitioner

employee has not put in (190) musters due to which he was issued Charge sheet for habitual absenteeism without any

sufficient cause and without any sanctioned leave which is misconduct under clause 25.25 & 25.31 of the Respondent

Company Standing orders. The relevant clause of standing orders reads as under:

“Clause 25.25 – Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”

”Clause 25. 31 – Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.”

3(c). The enquiry notice was issued informing about enquiry and date of enquiry as 04.09.2017 vide Letter

dt.30.08.2017 and the petitioner attended the enquiry and fully participated in the enquiry proceedings. During the

enquiry, he voluntarily accepted the charges levelled against him and stated that due to ill-health and financial

problems he could not perform his duties. He further stated that he does not want any help or assistance to conduct the

enquiry proceedings and he failed to cross examine the witness. The petitioner was habitual absentee and during the

last (12) years he has not put in (190) musters as required. During the year 2018 he has put in only 8 musters and in

the year 2014 he has put in (68) musters in spite of regular counselling and opportunities given to him. He was

irregular to duties and remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause and also he had put in

below (100) musters from 2012 to 2018 for (07) years continuously. He submitted written explanation dt.28.02.2017

to charge sheet by mentioning that he has family problems and financial problems. He has not mentioned anything

about his ill-health and not produced any documentary evidence relating to his ill-health. Further, the petitioner has

under gone PME on 24.10.2017 and was found fit for duty. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry proceedings

duly following the principles of natural justice and by adducing full and fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend his

case and he has not submitted any documents in his favour as evidence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings

vide enquiry report dt.04.09.2017 by holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct.

3(d). The petitioner was issued show cause notice dt.21.11.2017 duly enclosing the copy of the enquiry report to make

any representation against the findings of the enquiry officer within seven days. The petitioner received show cause

notice & submitted his representation dt.28.02.2017. The Respondent Company having gone through the past record

and representation, found no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, was constrained to impose capital

punishment and the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Respondent Company vide Office Order

dt.19.04.2019 w.e.f 25.04.2019, which is legal and valid. As per Article-311 (1) of Constitution of India, no person

who is a member of a Civil Service of the Union or an All India Service or Civil Service of a State or holds a civil

post under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was

appointed. This makes it clear that the provision is applicable to only to the person holding civil post and as per the

Article 311(2), no such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry

in which he has been informed the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect

of those charges. Provided that where it is proposed after such enquiry to impose upon him any such penalty, such

penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry & it shall not be necessary to give

such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty imposed. Hence, issuing of the show cause

notice by proposing punishment is not a requirement of the principles of natural justice. The respondent company’s

1904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

standing orders which were approved as per the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, do

not speak about issue of show cause notice proposing the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee.

There is no victimization and the punishment of dismissal is not harsh and the Respondent Company was very much

correct in imposing the punishment of dismissal because of the misconduct and the reckless attitude of the Petitioner.

Further, s per the provision under clause No. 29 of the Company standing orders, an employee has a right to appeal

against the penalty order imposed on him to the Appellate Authority i.e. Director (PA&W) within (45) days of

receipt of the order of punishment, where as in case of the petitioner, he did not submitted Appeal to General

Manager, APA within (45) days.

3(e). The habitual absenteeism creates lot of indiscipline among the workers, disturb the working system, it will

reflect on the co- workers working system and also causing financial burden due to extending the benefits though they

are not contributing in improving the production and productivity. Further huge sums are being forced to earmark the

provisions for gratuity, etc., in spite of their zero contribution to the organization. The management examined all the

possibilities to reduce the punishment, but, the petitioner being a chronic absentee failed to submit any proof in

support of his contention. The respondent company could not find any way to take lenient view in this case and as the

case of the petitioner was devoid of demerits, the respondent company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from

service.

3(f). The Respondent’s company employs more than 40,000 persons, which includes workmen, executives and

supervisors. The production results will depend upon the overall attendance and performance of each and every

individual. They are interlinked and inseparable. In this regard, if any one remains absent, without prior sanction of

leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed get effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden

void, which at times is very difficult to fill-up, and there will be no proper planning and already planned schedules get

suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That is the reason why the Respondents Company is compelled to take severe

action against the unauthorized absentees. In the instant case, the Petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee having

failed to improve his attendance and work performance even after being punished earlier. With the advent and

implementation of new industrial and economic policies by Central Government as well as company, the Respondent

Company cannot go on employing the persons who are chronic absentees, who are burden to the Respondent

company. As such, the Respondent company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner for his unauthorized

absenteeism through Office order dt.19.04.2019 w.e.f 25.04.2019. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the

petition and not to grant any relief to the petitioner/workman.

In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got marked Ex.W-1 and Ex.W-2 and on the other side,

for the Respondents’-Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-8 were marked, with consent of both parties.

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

Company, besides written arguments.

Now the points for consideration are:-

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent is held valid or not?

Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on evidence or not?

Whether the dismissal order dt.19.04.2019 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back wages?

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

7. From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’/Company, these are the admitted facts that the

Petitioner/Workman was working as Badli Filler in Respondents’/ Company and he was dismissed from service for

the charges of the unauthorized and habitual absenteeism to duties. Now coming to the documentary evidence of both

sides, on behalf of the respondents’/company, Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-8 were marked, wherein, Ex.M-1 and Ex.M-2 are the

attested copies of charge sheets issued to petitioner and Ex.M-3 is attested copy of letter acknowledged by the

petitioner. Ex.M-4 is attested copy of enquiry proceedings vide enquiry report dt.04.09.2017. Ex.M-5 is attested copy

of show cause notice. Ex.M-6 is attested copy of representation submitted by the petitioner. Ex.M-7 is attested copy of

dismissal order of petitioner vide Lr.No.RG.3/PER/IR/48/DA-828/1325 and Ex.M-8 is attested copy of name removal

letter of the petitioner. On the other side, the petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 and Ex. W-2 on his behalf, wherein,

Ex.W-1 is O/c of legal notice/demand letter with RP receipts and Ex.W-2 is postal acknowledgements. The above

documents of both sides are not in much dispute by either side.

8. Here, the learned counsel for the respondents’/company strenuously argued that the petitioner was appointed as

badli-filler on 12.07.2007, he was a chronic absentee and he had not put the required musters in any calendar year

through-out his service. He was issued with charge sheet dt.02.02.2013 under clause 25:31 but no action was taken

and he was once again issued Charge Sheets for his absenteeism during the years 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016 vide

Letters dt:02.02.2014, 10.01.2015 and dt:20.01.2016, but no action was taken for the charge sheets. As the petitioner

was not attending duties, the respondent company has also conducted counseling on 09.06.2014 and he attended with

family members and has given written explanation on 09.06.2014 stating the he has financial problems and he assured

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1905

to put in (23) musters in every month thereafter. But he did not change his attitude and failed to attend duties

regularly. In the due course as the petitioner failed to put-in required musters, he was again issued a charge sheet

dt.25.02.2017 for habitual absenteeism without any sufficient cause and without any sanctioned leave which is

misconduct under clause 25.25 & 25.31 of the Respondent Company Standing orders. The relevant clause of standing

orders reads as under:

“Clause 25.25 – Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”

”Clause 25. 31 – Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.”

8(a). The learned counsel for the respondents’/company further argued that the petitioner received the charge sheet

and submitted his explanation dt.28.02.2017 which was found not satisfactory. The enquiry notice was issued to the

petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceedings. During the enquiry, he voluntarily accepted the charges

levelled against him and stated that due to ill-health and financial problems he could not perform his duties. He

further stated that he does not want any help or assistance to conduct the enquiry proceedings and he failed to cross

examine the witness. The petitioner was habitual absentee and during the last (12) years, he has not put in (190)

musters as required. In the year 2018, he has put in only 8 musters and in the year 2014 he has put in (68) musters in

spite of regular counselling. He was irregular to duties and remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave

or sufficient cause and also he had put in below (100) musters from 2012 to 2018 for (07) years continuously. He has

not mentioned anything about his ill-health and not produced any documentary evidence relating to his ill-health. The

Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice and by adducing full and fair

opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings vide enquiry report

dt.04.09.2017 by holding the petitioner/workman guilty of charges and misconduct under standing orders.

8(b). The petitioner was issued show cause notice dt.21.11.2017 enclosing the copy of the enquiry report to which he

submitted his representation dt.28.02.2017. The Respondent Company having found no extenuating circumstances to

take a lenient view, was constrained to impose the punishment of dismissal from service vide Office Order

dt.19.04.2019 w.e.f 25.04.2019, which is legal and valid. There is no victimization and punishment of dismissal is not

harsh and the Respondent Company was very much correct in imposing the punishment of dismissal because of the

misconduct and the reckless attitude of the Petitioner. Further, the habitual absenteeism creates lot of indiscipline

among the workers, disturb the working system and also causing financial burden due to extending the benefits

though they are not contributing for the production and productivity. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition and

not to grant any relief to the petitioner/workman.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/ workman argued that the petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler

by respondents' company through Office Order dt.20.04.2007. Ever since the date of his appointment, the petitioner

was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of all his superiors, without any kind of adverse remarks. He

served the respondents' company effectively and rendered (12) years long service, the atmosphere and gases of the

said mine did not suit his health and he suffered from chronic ill-health, severe joint pains and body pain from 2014

onwards. He underwent prolonged medical treatment in the respondents' Company Hospitals and other referral

hospitals at regular intervals. But, due to underground work, his health was not cured completely and due to the

indifferent attitude of the respondents and disregard to his chronic ill-health, he continued to work in the underground

on one hand and undergoing treatment frequently on the other hand, due to which, his health completely deteriorated

from 2014. Due to the above problems, he could not put-in the required (100) musters during the year 2016. There is

no deliberate or intentional absence on the part of the petitioner, there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not

attending to duties regularly and for putting less musters during the charge sheet period of 2016. But, the respondent

No.2 dismissed the petitioner from service through Ref. dt.19.04.2019, with effect from 25.04.2019.

9(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner/ workman further argued that the petitioner submitted his satisfactory

explanation dt.28.02.2017 to the charge sheet, participated in the enquiry and deposed the true facts of his ill-health

and his family problems. But, the enquiry officer did not properly appreciate the evidence in favour of the petitioner.

He improved his attendance during the years 2018 and 2019 and put-in (68) physical muster in (03) months till March

2019. Further, the extremely harsh punishment of dismissal from service is highly excessive and shockingly

disproportionate, which amounts to economic death of petitioner. Ever since his unjust dismissal from service, he

could not secure any other alternative job and remained unemployed. He lost lively hood and incurred huge debts for

his medical and domestic expenses and he is facing lot of hard ship and misery to eke out lively hood for his family

members. Therefore, he prayed to the set aside the dismissal Order and to direct the respondents' company to reinstate

the petitioner into service, as prayed for.

POINT No.1:

10.

In this matter, initially the petitioner/workman has denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report. But,

on 05.02.2024 the learned counsel for petitioner filed memo U/Sec.11-A of I.D Act by accepting the procedure of

domestic enquiry against the petitioner, hence, this Tribunal holding the domestic enquiry is valid. However, this is a

1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

beneficial legislation and social legislation and in view of settled law, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence

and come to its own conclusion with regard to finding guilty or not. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

POINT No. 2 & 3:

11.

In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as the Respondents/Company and rival

arguments of both sides, now this Court will go into the evidence on record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident

that the petitioner absented to duties for (291) days and had put-in only (47) musters during the year 2016, for which

charge sheet 25.02.2017 was issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-1. Further, the petitioner also absented

to duties for (280) days and had put-in only (49) musters during the year 2017, for which charge sheet 06.01.2018 was

issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-2. Domestic enquiry was conducted regarding the absenteeism of

the petitioner during the year 2016 for which Ex.M-1 charge sheet was issued to him. It appears from the proceedings

of enquiry under Ex.M-3, that the Petitioner/Workman participated in the domestic enquiry and admitted he absented

for (294) days and put in (47) musters only in the year 2016 and pleaded guilty. He further admitted that due to family

problems, he could not attend to his duties regularly from 2012 onwards. He repented for his absenteeism to duty and

assured that he will put-in (20) musters every month failing which the management can initiate any action against

him. The enquiry officer further examined Sri I.Sai Srinivas, Asst. Supdt., and K.Venugopal, Pay Sheet Clerk on

behalf of the respondents, who deposed in support of the charges. Further from the Enquiry Report under Ex.M-3, it is

clearly evident that the charges were amply proved against the petitioner and he was asked to submit his

representation if any, on the enquiry findings report within (07) days vide notice dt.21.11.2017, which is marked as

Ex.M-4. The petitioner acknowledged the same and submitted his representation dt.28.02.2017 under Ex.M-6, which

is on the same lines of his statement during enquiry. The petitioner admitted that charges and reiterated that due to

family problems, he could not attend his duties regularly during the year 2016. The respondents/ company dismissed

the petitioner/workman from service vide Office Order dt.19.04.2019 which is marked as Ex.M-7 and the name

removal letter dt.25.04.2019 is marked as Ex.M-8. Thus, it is evident from the enquiry report under Ex.M-3 as well as

the material on record, that the petitioner had not put in minimum required musters of (190) and he put-in only (47)

musters and absented for (294) days, during the year 2016. For which, petitioner submitted that due to ill-health and

family problems, he was unable to perform duty regularly during the charge sheet period. Both the enquiry statement

of petitioner under Ex.M-3 and his explanation to the show cause notice under Ex.M-6 are on the same lines and they

clearly show that the petitioner/workman suffered from family problems during the charge sheet period. However, it

is clear that the petitioner has not attended to duties regularly and the charges were proved against him. Therefore, it

can be said that the respondents/company has no axe to grind against the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal has no

hesitation to hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner/workman are proved and misconduct of the workman

is established basing on the evidence and findings of enquiry officer are not perverse. Moreover, this is not the case

of loaded dice situation against the petitioner by the respondents/corporation.

12. Here, the contention of the Petitioner/Workman is that he was appointed in the year 2007 and he served the

company for (12) years, this is his very 1^st dismissal from service and he hails from a very poor family, he has got no

other livelihood and facing untold financial problems, and prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act. In

support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has relied upon a decision of the

Hon’ble High Court reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), wherein their lordships observed that:

“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted keeping

in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the Constitution.

Merely because workman approached to Labour Court with delay, relief cannot be denied. No indication in the Act

that delay extinguishes right conferred on the workmen under Industrial Law. The Labour Court is conferred with

very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A. The Industrial Court conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A of the Act for

granting appropriate relief”.

13.

Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, if we come to quantum of sentence it is

settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised U/Sec.11-A is available only on the existence of certain

factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the

Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past

conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. Therefore, in the present

case on hand, a perusal of record, it shows that this is the very 1^st dismissal from service of the petitioner. Further, the

petitioner submitted that he hail from a very poor family and has got no other livelihood and facing untold financial

problems, hence prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D., Act. The petitioner is out of employment from

25.04.2019, he served the respondents/ company for (12) years and this is very 1^st dismissal from service. In view of

the above circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from

service imposed by the respondents/company against the Petitioner deserves to be set aside since the disciplinary

authority cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight

between David and Goliath as in the present case on hand.

14.

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1907

service imposed on the Petitioner vide Office Order dt.19.04.2019 under Ex.M-7 deserves to be modified. However,

since the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved, the relief is to be molded by this Tribunal appropriately

and this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service as “Afresh

Badli Worker” only. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, any continuity of service and any

attendant benefits, since petitioner might have gainfully employed during pendency of this Industrial Dispute. Hence,

the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Respondents Company is hereby modified appropriately.

Accordingly, the Point No.2 & 3 are answered.

15.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order dt.19.04.2019 under Ex.M-7 passed

by the Respondent No.2 is hereby modified appropriately. The respondents’/company is directed to reinstate the

petitioner into service as “Afresh Badli Worker” only, but without any continuity of service, without any attendant

benefits and without any back wages. The petitioner is entitled to the salary only from the date of publication this

Award. Copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. Both parties shall bear their own

costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1^st day of March, 2024.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN:-

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

02.05.2021

O/c of legal notice/demand letter with RP receipts.

Ex.W-2

Dt.

Postal acknowledgements.

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

25.02.2017

Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No.

APA/ALP/ R07/(2016)/467

Ex.M-2

Dt.

06.01.2018

Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No.

APA/ALP/ R07/(2017)/157

Ex.M-3

Dt.

30.08.2017

Attested Copy of letter sent to the petitioner, acknowledged by the

petitioner

Ex.M-4

Dt.

Attested Copy of Enquiry proceedings vide enquiry report

dated:04.09.2017

Ex.M-5

Dt.

21.11.2017

Attested Copy of Show cause notice

Ex.M-6

Dt.

28.02.2017

Attested Copy of representation submitted by the petitioner

Ex.M-7

Dt.

19.04.2019

Attested

copy

dismissal

order

petitioner

vide

Lr.No.RG.3/PER/IR/ 48/DA-828/1325

Ex.M-8

Dt.

25.04.2019

Attested Copy of Name Removal letter of the petitioner vide

Lr.No.APA/ALP/ P22/1201

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024

का.आ. 887.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरीखानी ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल–22013/01/2024-आईआर(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

1908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024

S.O. 887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/04/2024.

[No. 22013/01/2024-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 21^st DAY OF MARCH, 2024.

I.D.No. 12 of 2022

Between:-

K. Srinivas, S/o. Yellaiah, 46 Years, E.C.No.882907, Ex-Badli Filler, C/o. S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, H.No.19-1-

103/A, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani, District Peddapalli, (Telangana) -505 209.

…Petitioner.

AND

The Colliery Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., K.K-5 Incline, Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., P.O: Kothagudem,

District: Khammam (T.S).

...Respondents.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the

Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act, 1947 praying to set aside the dismissal order

Ref. No. MMR/PER/D/072/21/3430, dt.20/24.05.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’-

company to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits

and full back wages.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

2(a).

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

year 1991 as Badli Filler and rendered long service. He put-in more than the (100) required musters per year and his

musters from 2014 to 2016 as shown in the charge sheet is furnished here under:-

Sl.

No.

Particulars

Total Musters

Musters of 2014

(121) musters

Musters of 2015

(102) musters

Musters of 2016

(101) musters

Musters of 2017

Due to severe ill-health and kidney problem of Smt. Kalvala

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1909

Musters of 2018

Narmada - wife, petitioner imparted prolonged treatment to her

from 2017-2020 and petitioner sustained fractures to his leg and

hand, as such, he could not put-in (100) musters.

Musters of 2019

Musters of 2020

(Charge sheet year)

2(b). The petitioner suffered from chronic ill-health and sustained fractures to his leg and hand and he underwent

prolonged medical treatment in the respondents’ Company Hospitals and other referral hospitals, but, his health was

not cured completely. Further, wife of petitioner Kalavala Narmada was suffering from Kidney Problem, chronic ill-

health since 2017 and he imparted prolonged treatment to her in the SCCL Hospitals and the respondents referred her

to NIMS Hospital and Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad, where-at the petitioner imparted prolonged treatment to her.

Due to above health problems and COVID-2019, the petitioner could put-in (71) musters and fell short of (29)

musters during the year 2020. The petitioner continued to work on one hand and undergoing treatment frequently for

himself and his wife on the other hand and he improved his attendance during the years 2018 and 2020. But, the

respondent issued charge sheet dt.06.02.2021 alleging:-

“25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

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

leave”.

There is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not attending to duties regularly during the charge sheet period of

2020 and the respondents imparted treatment to the petitioner and his wife Kalavala Narmada in the SCCL Area

Hospital and referred her to NIMS Hospital & Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad, due to chronic Kidney Problems. She

was imparted prolonged treatment during the years 2017-2020. But, the 2^nd respondent unjustly dismissed the

petitioner from service through Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021.

2(c). The petitioner suffered from severe ill-health and fractures to his leg and hand. Further due to bilateral flank

pain more on left associated with vomiting & Kidney Problem, wife of the petitioner Smt. Narmada was imparted

treatment in the SCCL Area Hospitals. But, since her health condition was not improved, the respondents have

referred wife of the petitioner to NIMS Hospital and Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad during the years 2018 to 2020.

The doctors diagnosed her “Right Kidney measures 10.8 x 5.5cm. Multiple Calculi (5), largest measuring < 8.4mm

noted in upper, mid and lower pole calyces. Left Kidney measures 9.4 x 5cm. One calculus measuring 5mm noted in

upper pole calyx. Impression: Bilateral non obstructive renal calculi – Splenomegaly. Medical documents and

discharge summaries of SCCL Area Hospitals, NIMS Hospital, Satya Kidney Centre, other Hospitals and reference

letters may kindly be considered by this Court. The 1^st respondent served charge sheet to the petitioner on 22.03.2021

and obtained written explanation from him on the same day and a formal domestic enquiry was conducted within (4)

days, assuring that he will be allowed to duty. He participated in the enquiry proceedings on 26.03.2021, deposed the

facts of ill-health and his family problems and submitted Medical Certificates. But, the enquiry officer did not

properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence; and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are very cryptic

vague, biased and perverse. The Respondent No.2 required the petitioner to make representation on the findings

report of the Enquiry Officer by letter dt.24.04.2021, to which he submitted his satisfactory explanation. But, the 2^nd

respondent unjustly dismissed him from service by Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021 straight away, without issuing any prior

Show Cause Notice proposing the said capital punishment of dismissal.

2(d). The petitioner’s health condition badly deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill-health, during the charge

sheeted period. Since his wife was a chronic Kidney Patient, the petitioner imparted prolonged treatment to her at

regular intervals. The petitioner’s health condition badly deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill health, during

the charge sheeted period and there is sufficient and reasonable cause for the petitioner for not attending to duties

during charge sheet period and it cannot be termed as misconduct. Further, imposing the capital punishment of

dismissal from service on the petitioner without any prior show cause notice proposing the said capital punishment is

against the settled Law and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The extremely harsh punishment of dismissal

is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which amounts to economic death of the petitioner. Ever since

his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any other alternative job inspite

of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other source of livelihood. Therefore, he prays to set

aside the dismissal order dt. dt.20/24.05.2021 passed by the Respondent No.2 and to direct the Respondents’-

Company to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, all consequential attendant benefits and full back

wages.

3. On the other side the Respondents/Management filed counter by admitting the employment of the

Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents’-Company, however, inter-alia contended that since the coal mining

industry is a central subject the Appropriate Government for Respondent/Management is Central Government, which

established an Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29.12.2000 for adjudication of industrial

1910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

disputes and the Petitioner ought to have approached the said tribunal for the redressal of grievance, if any. But, the

Petitioner conveniently avoided filing his petition before the Tribunal established by the Central Government and

hence it is not maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on this ground alone.

3(a). The Respondent Company without prejudice to its rights in respect of the objection raised as above submits that

the petitioner was It is submitted that the petitioner initially was appointed as Badli-filler, worked as Coal Filler and

dismissed from the service of this respondent company. He was later reappointed in the company on 02.05.2012 in

compliance with the Award dt.10.01.2011, passed by Lok Adalath Bench of CGIT, Hyderabad. Further, respondents’

company is governed by standing orders, according to section 52(2) of the Mines Act, 1953 an underground employee

is required to put in minimum muster of 190 and surface employees has to put to 240 musters. The petitioner being

underground employee is expected to put in minimum 190 musters in a calendar year, but from the year 2014 to till

the date of dismissal of the petitioner, he did put in 190 musters in any of the calendar year and his attendance was not

satisfactory, the details of the attendance put in by the petitioner since from the date of his re-appointment is

mentioned below:-

Sl. No.

Year

No. of Musters

2012

133

2013

130

2014

121

2015

102

2016

101

2017

152

2018

2019

2020

10.

2021

3(b).

The averment of the petitioner that he suffered he suffered from chronic ill-health and sustained fractures to

his leg and hand and he underwent prolonged medical treatment in the Company Hospital is incorrect and hence

denied. The Respondent Company employs more than 43,600 persons and the production results will depend upon the

overall attendance and performance of every individual. If anyone remains absent without prior sanction of leave or

without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void,

which at times is very difficult to fill-up with substitute, and there will be no proper planning and already planned

schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. For that reason every time the company inform its workers to

intimate prior to the unit in-charge so that they may arrange substitute and failing to inform will result in to

production and burden on the other employees.

3(c). The petitioner remained absent from duties without intimation which constitutes misconduct under Companies

approved standing orders No. 25.25 and 25.31. As such charges were leveled and charge sheet No.

MMR/KK5/R/007/21/499, dt.06-02-2021 was issued to the petitioner. The relevant clause of standing orders reads as

under:

25.25: Habitual Late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

25.31: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave.

The respondents’ company is providing medical facilities to its employees and their dependants as In and Out-patients

through its Hospitals and if required the patients will be referred to higher centers for further treatment and diagnosis.

In the same manner, the petitioner was also extended medical facilities by the respondents’ company for ailments

which he was suffering for.

3(d). Enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner was conducted by the Enquiry Officer on 26.03.2021 and

the Petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings. He was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. In

his deposition before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner himself admitted that he remained absent on the dates

mentioned in the charge sheet and admitted his mistake and added that he remained absent due to ill-health of himself

and his wife. However, he did not submit any other documentary evidence about the alleged ill health which

prevented him from remaining absent from duties during the entire absenteeism period. The Enquiry Officer gave him

opportunity to adduce evidence and to produce documentary evidence; witnesses in support of his claim, but the

Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence and not produced witness. The Enquiry Officer has given fair

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1911

findings basing on the documents and oral evidence given by petitioner and his finding is not vague. The enquiry was

conducted by the Enquiry Officer following all the principles of natural justice and the petitioner did not raise any

objections as to the conduct of enquiry proceedings at the time of enquiry and signed on the report submitted by the

Enquiry

Officer.

The

copies

enquiry

report

and

proceedings

were

sent

the

Petitioner

No.MMR/PER/D/072/21/2705, dated 24.04.2021, to which he submitted a representation dt.30.04.2021 wherein he

mentioned that that he and his wife were suffering from ill-health and hence he remained absent to duties. Even at this

stage too, the petitioner did not substantiate with valid documentary evidence about the alleged ill-health which he

and his wife were suffering. Hence, the respondents’ company was constrained to impose the capital punishment and

dismissed the petitioner from service vide Ref. No. MMR/PER/D/072/21/3430, dt.20/24.05.2021 and his Appeal was

rejected confirming the dismissal order and communicated to the petitioner vide letter CRP/PER/IR/D/90/1186,

dt.24.09.2021.

3(e). The Petitioner was given number of opportunities to correct himself and to be regular to his duties by imposing

minor penalties such as issued Warning letter for the unauthorized absenteeism during the calendar year 2017, fine of

Rs.2000/- for unauthorized absenteeism during the calendar year 2018 and stoppage of one increment without

cumulative effect for the absenteeism during the calendar Year 2019. But, the petitioner has failed to improve his

attendance and resorted to unauthorizedly absent for duty during the calendar year 2020. The petitioner has put-in 100

musters or more only in 05 occasions from the year 2012-2016 and from the year 2017 to till date of dismissal i.e., till

24.05.2021 he has put in below 100 musters continuously. The company has given many opportunities to the

petitioner with a hope that he may change and attend to his duties. Even after giving opportunities to improve his

attendance, the petitioner continued his absenteeism continuously and there is no improvement in the attendance. As

no other go, the company issued charge sheet to the petitioner after giving all the opportunities and it is the

Petitioner’s misconduct which compelled the Respondent/ Management to impose penalty of dismissal which cannot

be termed as unjust. The Respondent management cannot be held responsible for the alleged huge debts and

unemployment. The other allegations of the petition are denied and Respondents’-Company prayed to dismiss the

petition, without granting any relief to the petitioner.

4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got examined himself as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W-1 to

Ex.W-21 on his behalf. On the other side for the Respondents’-Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-8 were marked, with

consent of the petitioner/workman.

5. Arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioner/workman as well as the learned counsel for the

Respondents/Management heard. Perused the record produced before this Tribunal, rival arguments and citations.

Now the points for consideration are:-

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

Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on evidence or not?

Whether the dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is

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

wages?

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

7. From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’ Company, these are the admitted facts that the

petitioner/workman worked as Badli-Filler (Underground) in the Respondents’-Company and he was dismissed from

service by order dt.20/24.05.2021. Now coming to the documentary evidence on both sides, on behalf of the

Respondents’/Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-8 were marked, wherein, Ex.M-1 is attested copy of letter of R-1 for taking

disciplinary action against petitioner and Ex.M-2 is attested copy of service and other particulars of petitioner

(Proforma-A). Ex.M-3 is attested copy of charge sheet dt.06.02.2021 issued to petitioner and Ex.M-4 is attested copy

of acknowledgment. Ex.M-5 is attested copy of explanation to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner. Ex.M-6 is

attested copy of Enquiry Notice to the petitioner and Ex.M-7 is attested copy of Muster particulars of petitioner from

January 2020 to December 2020. Ex.M-8 is Disciplinary proceedings of Medical Board Lr.No.RKP/MED/W/22/

9463 and OP Receipt.

7(a). On the other side, the petitioner himself was got examined as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W-1 to W-21 on his

behalf, wherein, Ex.W-1 is Dismissal Order issued by R-2 and Ex.W-2 is Name Removal memo issued by R-1.

Ex.W-3 is Pay Slip of December 2020 showing (71.50) yearly total musters during the year 2020. Ex.W-4 is Ultra

sonogram of the abdomen report of Smt.Narmada, wife of petitioner, issued by SCCL Area Hospital, RG-I. Ex.W-5 is

Discharge Summary of Smt.Narmada, wife of petitioner, issued by SCCL Area Hospital, RG-I. Ex.W-6 is OPD Card

of Smt.Narmada, wife of petitioner, issued by Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad. Ex.W-7 is Discharge summary of

inpatient treatment from 09.05.2018 to 14.05.2018, of Satya Kidney Centre & Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.W-8 is Medical Treatment and Prescription of SCCL Area Hospital, Ramagundam to wife of petitioner from

26.01.2019 to 08.06.2020. Ex.W-9 is Medical Treatment & Prescription of SCCL Area Hospital, Ramagundam, for

1912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wife of the petitioner from 02.11.2019 to 07.01.2020. Ex.W-10 is Discharge Card of inpatient treatment from

08.11.2019 to 14.11.2019 of SCCL Group of hospitals, to petitioner. Ex.W-11 is Discharge Card of inpatient

treatment from 07.01.2020 to 09.01.2020 of SCCL Group of Hospitals, for Narmada, wife of the petitioner. Ex.W-12

is Medical treatment by Ambica Hospital, Godavarikhani to wife of petitioner from 12.10.2020 to 13.11.2020. Ex.W-

13 is Blood Examination Report, Bio-Chemical Report & other reports of wife of petitioner. Ex.W-14 is Ultrasound

Scan of Whole Abdomen Report of wife of petitioner by Aditya Diagnostics, CT Scan Centre. Ex.W-15 is Blood

Examination Report, Bio-Chemical Report & other reports of wife of petitioner. Ex.W-16 is Medical treatment and

reports of Ambica Hospital, Godavarikhani of wife of petitioner. Ex.W-17 is Blood Examination Report, Bio-

Chemical Report & other reports of wife of petitioner. Ex.W-18 is Ultrasound Scan of Whole Abdomen & Pelvis

Report of wife of petitioner by Lotus Scan Centre. Ex.W-19 is Complete Blood Picture report of Sigma Clinical

Laboratory, Godavarikhani. Ex.W-20 is Appeal rejection order issued by Director (PA&W) and Ex.W-21 is O/c of

Demand Letter of the petitioner.

Here, the learned counsel for the respondents’-company has strenuously argued that since the coal mining

industry is a central subject the Appropriate Government for Respondents/Management is Central Government, which

established Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad for adjudication of Industrial Disputes

and the Petitioner ought to have approached the said Tribunal for the redressal of grievance, if any. But, the Petitioner

conveniently avoided filing his petition before the Tribunal established by the Central Government and hence it is not

maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on this ground alone.

8(a). The learned counsel for the respondents’-company argued that the petitioner was initially was appointed as

Badli-filler in the year 1991, he worked as Coal Filler and was dismissed from the service of this respondent

company. He was later reappointed in the company on 02.05.2012 in compliance with Award, dt.10.01.2011 and he

being an underground employee is expected to put–in minimum 190 Musters in a calendar year, but, he was not

regular to his duties and in no year he had put in the required 190 musters. The contentions of the Petitioner that he

suffered from chronic ill-health and sustained fractures to his leg and hand and he underwent prolonged medical

treatment in the Company Hospital are incorrect. If he was really suffering from ill health, it becomes his primary

responsibility to report sick in Colliery Hospital or he should have informed to unit officers about his incapability to

attend duties and he would have got leave or loss of pay leave but he did not inform anything. The Respondent

Company employs more than 43,600 persons and the production results will depend upon the overall attendance and

performance of every individual. If any one remains absent without prior sanction of leave or without any justified

cause, the work to be performed get effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times is very

difficult to fill-up with substitute, and there will be no proper planning and already planned schedules get suddenly

disturbed without prior notice. For that reason every time the company inform its workers to intimate prior to the unit

in-charge so that they may arrange substitute and failing to inform will result in to production and burden on the other

employees.

8(b). The learned counsel for the respondents’-company further argued that the petitioner had put in 51 musters only

and on all other days in the year 2020 he remained absent from duties without intimation. As the above act amounted

to misconduct under Company Standing Orders No. 25.25 & 25.31, he was issued charge sheet dt.06-02-2021 for

absenteeism for the year 2020, it was received by him on 22.03.2021 and he submitted his explanation dt.23.03.2021.

The Petitioner did not report sick in Company’s Hospitals during the entire absenteeism period. Enquiry into the

charges leveled against the petitioner was conducted by the Enquiry Officer on 26.03.2021 and the Petitioner has

participated in the enquiry proceedings. He was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. In his deposition

before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner admitted that he remained absent on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet,

admitted his mistake that he remained absent due to his ill-health and of his wife. However, he did not submit any

other documentary evidence about the alleged ill-health which prevented him from remaining absent from duties

during entire absenteeism period. Copies of enquiry report and proceedings were sent to the petitioner to enable him

to submit his written representation against the findings contained in the enquiry report and he submitted his

representation dt.30.04.2021 wherein he mentioned that he and his wife were suffering from ill-health and hence he

remained absent to duties. Even at this stage also, the petitioner did not substantiate with valid documentary evidence

about the alleged ill-health which he and his wife were suffering. Hence, the respondents’ company was constrained

to impose capital punishment and dismissed from service vide office order dt.20/24.05.2021 and his Appeal was

rejected by Director (PA&W) vide letter dt.24.08.2021/24.09.2021.

8(c). The learned counsel for the respondents’-company also argued that the petitioner was given number of

opportunities to correct himself and to be regular to his duties by imposing minor penalties such as such as issued

Warning letter for the unauthorized absenteeism during the Calendar Year 2017, fine of Rs.2000/- for the

unauthorized absenteeism during the Calendar Year 2018 and stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect

for the unauthorized absenteeism during the Calender Year 2019. But, the petitioner has failed to improve his

attendance and resorted to unauthorizedly absent for duty during the calendar year 2020. The petitioner put in 100

musters or more only in 05 occasions from the year 2012-2016 and from the year 2017 to till date of dismissal

i.e., 24.05.2021 he has put in below 100 musters continuously. Even after giving opportunities to improve his

attendance, the petitioner continued his absenteeism and there is no improvement in the attendance. The Petitioner’s

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1913

misconduct compelled the Respondents /Management to impose penalty of dismissal which cannot be termed as

unjust. The petitioner not utilized the opportunities given by the company and not improved his attendance. Hence,

the Respondent Company dismissed him from service vide order dt.20/24.05.2021, which is justified. Hence, he

prayed to dismiss the petition, without granting any relief.

9. Per contra, on the point of jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman contended that as per the

Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa

Vs. Cotton Corporation of India, this Tribunal has jurisdiction over Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., to entertain

the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner/workman though the appropriate Govt. is Central Govt., The petitioner

need not raise the Industrial Dispute compulsorily before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad alone, as

contended by the respondents’ company. Hence, this I.D petition filed by petitioner/ workman is well maintainable

before this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute on merits.

9(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman argued that the Petitioner/Workman was initially during the year

1991 as Badli Filler and rendered long service and he was re-appointed in the Company 2012 in compliance with the

Award of CGIT, Hyderabad. He was put-in more than the (100) required musters per year and his musters from 2014

to 2016 as shown in the charge sheet. He suffered from chronic ill-health and sustained fractures to his leg and hand

and he underwent prolonged medical treatment in the respondents’ Company Hospitals and other referral hospitals,

but, his health was not cured completely. Further, wife of the petitioner Kalavala Narmada was suffering from Kidney

Problem, chronic ill-health since 2017 and he imparted prolonged treatment to her in the SCCL Hospitals and the

respondents referred her to NIMS Hospital and Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad, where-at the petitioner imparted

prolonged treatment to her. Due to above health problems and COVID-2019, the petitioner could put-in (71) musters

and fell short of (29) musters during the year 2020. The petitioner continued to work on one hand and undergoing

treatment frequently for himself and his wife on the other hand and he improved his attendance during the years 2018

and 2020. There is there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not attending to duties regularly during the charge

sheet period of 2020 and the respondents imparted treatment to the petitioner and his wife Kalavala Narmada in the

SCCL Area Hospital and referred her to NIMS Hospital & Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad, due to chronic Kidney

Problems. She was imparted prolonged treatment during the years 2017-2020. But, the 2^nd respondent unjustly

dismissed the petitioner from service through Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021.

9(b). The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman further argued that due to bilateral flank pain more on left

associated with vomitings & Kidney Problem, wife of the petitioner Smt.Narmada wife of the petitioner was imparted

treatment in the SCCL Area Hospitals. But, since her health condition was not improved, the respondents have

referred wife of the petitioner to NIMS Hospital and Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad during the years 2018 to 2020.

The doctors diagnosed her “Right Kidney measures 10.8 x 5.5cm. Multiple Calculi (5), largest measuring < 8.4mm

noted in upper, mid and lower pole calyces. Left Kidney measures 9.4 x 5cm. One calculus measuring 5mm noted in

upper pole calyx. Impression: Bilateral non obstructive renal calculi – Splenomegaly. Medical documents and

discharge summaries of SCCL Area Hospitals, NIMS Hospital, Satya Kidney Centre, other Hospitals and reference

letters may kindly be considered by this Court. The 1^st respondent served charge sheet to the petitioner on 22.03.2021

and obtained written explanation from him on the same day and a formal domestic enquiry was conducted within (4)

days, assuring that he will be allowed to duty. He participated in the enquiry proceedings on 26.03.2021, deposed the

facts of ill-health and his family problems and submitted Medical Certificates. But, the enquiry officer did not

properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence in favour of the petitioner; and findings of the Enquiry Officer

are very cryptic vague, biased and perverse. The 2^nd respondent required the petitioner to make representation on the

findings report of the Enquiry Officer by letter dt.24.04.2021, to which he submitted his satisfactory explanation. But,

the 2^nd respondent dismissed him from service by Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021 straight away, unjustly, without issuing any

prior Show Cause Notice proposing the said capital punishment of dismissal from service. His health condition was

badly deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period and there is sufficient and

reasonable cause for the petitioner for not attending to duties during charge sheet period and it cannot be termed as

misconduct.

9(c).

The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman further argued that imposing the capital punishment of

dismissal from service without any prior show cause notice is against the principles of natural justice. The extremely

harsh punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which amounts to economic death

of the petitioner. Ever since his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any

other alternative job in spite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other source of

livelihood. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order and direct the Respondents’-Company to reinstate the

petitioner/workman into service with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and full back wages.

POINT No. 1:

10.

Here, on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is settled Law that as per the Division Bench

Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa Vs. Cotton

Corporation of India, this Tribunal has got every jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the

petitioner/workman who was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Even though, the Central Govt. is

1914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appropriate Govt., for the respondents’-Company, the petitioner need not compulsorily raise the Industrial Dispute

before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, as contended by the respondents’ company; and he can file

this I.D. case before this Tribunal as well. Hence, the contentions of the respondents’-company on the point of

jurisdiction of this Tribunal are not sustainable under Law. Accordingly, it is answered in favour of the

petitioner/workman and against the respondents’ company.

11.

Further, in this matter, initially the petitioner/workman denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report.

But on 03.10.2023, the learned counsel for petitioner filed memo U/Sec.11-A of I.D Act by accepting the procedure

of domestic enquiry. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the facts of the case and the

findings are not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion with

regard to finding guilty or not based on evidence. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

POINT No. 2 & 3:

12. In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as Respondents/corporation as well as in view of the

rival arguments of their respective counsel now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the

petitioner was dismissed from service by Proc. dt.20/24.05.2021 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was absent

from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause during the year 2020. From a perusal of the record, it shows

that Charge Sheet dt.06.02.2021 was issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-3. It is evident from the charge

sheet that the petitioner absented to duties for 220 days and had put-in only 51 actual musters during the year 2020. It

further shows the musters of the petitioner during the years from 2015 to 2019 and it appears that he put in 102 muster

during the year 2015 and 101 musters during the year 2016, 52 musters during the year 2017, 94 musters during the

year 2018 and 59 musters during the year 2019. The petitioner submitted his explanation to charge sheet, which is

marked as Ex.M-5 wherein he stated that he suffered from ill-health and sustained fractures to his right hand and due

to heavy weight lifting while performing duties, there is swelling and pain. He further stated that his wife is a kidney

patient and suffering from ill-health due to which he was imparting treatment to her and hence he could not attend to

his duties during the year 2020.

12(a). Further, a perusal of Ex.M-6 enquiry call letter shows that domestic enquiry was scheduled to be conducted on

26.03.2021 and as per the pleadings of both parties the Petitioner/Workman participated in the domestic enquiry and

deposed that he absented from duty from January 2020 due to his ill-health and of his wife. He assured that he will

attend to his duties regularly and requested to take a lenient view. The muster particulars of petitioner from January

2020 to December 2020, which is marked as Ex.M-7 shows 92 actual musters, 20 leaves and 144 absent days of the

petitioner. From the pleadings of both parties, it is evident that the petitioner absented to duty without sanctioned

leave and he accepted charge, though pleaded that due to health problems of himself and his wife, he remained absent

to his duties. The domestic enquiry file in original together with enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Report with service

particulars of the petitioner were submitted to the respondent No.2 General Manager, vide letter dt.30.03.2021, which

is marked as Ex.M-1. Further, the service particulars of the petitioner produced before this Tribunal under Ex.M-2 it

is evident that the petitioner put-in 102 musters during the 2015, 101 musters during the year 2016, 92 musters during

the year 2020 i.e., charge sheet year. Further, it appears from Ex.M-2 service particulars, that the petitioner was

granted sick leave for 45 days during the year 2017, and 15 days each during the years 2018 to 2021. The proceedings

dt.23.08.2022 of the Dy. Chief Medical Officer, SCCL Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur is marked as Ex.M-7,

wherein, O.P records of the petitioner/workman dt.15.11.2019 were furnished to respondent No.2 General Manager.

Dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021 is marked as Ex.W-1 and appeal submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the

Director (PA&W) by order dt.24.08.2021/24.09.2021, which is marked as Ex.W-40.

12(b). Apart from the above, the petitioner/workman submitted several medical prescriptions and treatment imparted

to him and his wife Smt. Nirmala, which are marked as Ex.W-3 to Ex.W-19. Most of the medical documents

submitted by the petitioner were issued by the SCCL Hospitals and other referral hospitals such as, Satya Kidney

Centre and NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, which prima-facie show that the petitioner and his wife Smt. Nirmala

suffused from ill-health during the years 2017 to 2020. The petitioner explained that due to his own ill-health and ill-

health of his wife, he absented to duties during the charge sheeted year of 2020 and prayed to consider his case

sympathetically. However, the respondents/company dismissed the petitioner/workman from service by Proc.

dt.20/24.05.2021 which is marked as Ex.W-1. Thus, it is evident from the pleadings of both parties and material on

record that the petitioner had not put in minimum required musters of 190 and he put-in less musters during the year

2020. For which, petitioner submitted that due to ill-health he was unable to perform duty regularly during the charge

sheet period and submitted several medical prescriptions and reports, which are marked as Ex.W-3 to Ex.W-19.

Further, the above medical documents of the petitioner lend support to the defense put-forth by the petitioner and his

explanation to the charge sheet under Ex.M-5. These documents clearly show that the petitioner/workman and his

wife have suffered from ill-health during the charge sheet period and hence the defense put-forth by him is plausible.

However, it is clear that the petitioner has not attended to duties regularly and the charge was proved against him.

Therefore, it can be said that the respondents/company has no axe to grind against the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal

has no hesitation to hold that the charge leveled against the petitioner/workman is proved and misconduct of the

workman is established basing on the evidence and the findings of enquiry officer are not perverse. But, at the same

time much gravity cannot be attributed to the petitioner since his ill-health and treatment imparted by SCCL and other

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1915

referral hospitals is supported by the medical documents produced before this Tribunal which shows reasonable cause

for the petitioner’s absence during the charge sheet period.

13. Here, the contention of the Petitioner/Workman is that he was appointed in the year 1991 and he served the

company for several years. The petitioner suffered from chronic ill-health and sustained fractures to his leg and hand

and he underwent prolonged medical treatment in the respondents’ Company Hospitals and other referral hospitals.

Further, his wife Smt.Nirmala suffered from serious ill-health and kidney problem and since her health condition was

not improved, the respondents’ company has referred her to the NIMS Hospital and Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad

during the years 2018 to 2020. The doctors diagnosed her “Right Kidney measures 10.8 x 5.5cm. Multiple Calculi (5),

largest measuring < 8.4mm noted in upper, mid and lower pole calyces. Left Kidney measures 9.4 x 5cm. One

calculus measuring 5mm noted in upper pole calyx. Impression: Bilateral non obstructive renal calculi –

Splenomegaly. He hails from a very poor family, he has got no other livelihood and facing untold financial problems,

and prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the following citations:-

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN AIR 1988 SC 303 – Between: Scooter India

Ltd, Labour Court, Lucknow & ors:

In this case, the Labour Court while holding that enquiry had conformed to statutory prescriptions and

principles of natural justice, yet held that order of termination was not justified and ordered for reinstating

employee with 75% back wages. Wide powers are vested in Labour Court or Tribunal. Labour Court can

temper justice with mercy and give an opportunity to an erring workman to reform himself. Order of Labour

Court granting relief of reinstatement with 75% back wages was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN W.A. No.1101/2008 and W.P.No.7671 of 2000, dt.07.04.2009

D.B. Judgment:

In this case, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service and half-of back wages. The

Hon’ble High Court held that since the petitioner remained unemployed from the date of removal, modified

the award of Labour Court by granting full back wages.

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dt.24-08-2009 in Civil Appeal No.5762 of 2009, Between: Coal India

Ltd. & Anr Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudari and others.

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dt.14-05-2009 Between: Jagadish Singh Vs. Punjab Engineering

College and others.

In the above Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Sl.No.3 & 4 reveals that the Hon’ble Court held that the

punishment should be in commensurate with the gravity of charges and not shockingly disproportionate.

13(a). Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court

reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), wherein their lordships observed that:

“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted

keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the

Constitution. The Labour Court is conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A. The Industrial Court

conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A of the Act for granting appropriate relief”.

14. Therefore, in view of the above decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case, if we come to quantum of

sentence it is settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised U/Sec.11-A is available only on the existence of

certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to shock the conscience of

the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past

conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. A perusal of record shows

that the petitioner and his wife have suffered from ill-health and submitted several medical documents showing the

treatment imparted to them by SCCL Hospitals and other referral hospitals. Further, the petitioner submitted that he

hails from a very poor family and has got no other livelihood and facing untold financial problems, hence prayed to

consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D., Act. The petitioner is out of employment from the year 2021 and there is

reasonable and sufficient cause for his absence to duties during charge sheet period, as the ill-health suffered by the

petitioner is supported by the medical record of respondents’ SCCL-company produced before this Tribunal. Further,

it appears from the counter filed by the respondents’ company that during the previous years from 2012 to 2017, the

petitioner put-in musters of 133, 130, 121, 102, 101 and 152 respectively. In view of the above mitigating

circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service

imposed by the respondents’/ company against the petitioner deserves to be set aside since the disciplinary authority

cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight between David

and Goliath as in the present case on hand.

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

mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the punishment of dismissal

from service deserves to be set aside. However, since the charge leveled against the petitioner are proved, the relief is

1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to be molded by this Tribunal appropriately and considering the mitigating circumstances discussed supra, the

petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service only. But, the petitioner is not entitled to

any back wages and any attendant benefits during the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to till date

since he might have gainfully employed during pendency of this Industrial Dispute. Hence, the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed by the Respondents’ Company is hereby modified appropriately. Accordingly, the

Point No.2 & 3 are answered.

16. IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021, under Ex.W-1 passed by

the Respondent No.2 is hereby modified appropriately. The respondents’/company is directed to reinstate the

petitioner into service with continuity of service only, but, without any attendant benefits and without any back wages

during the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to till date. The petitioner is entitled to the salary only

from the date of publication this Award. Copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the

21^st day of March, 2024.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN:-

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

W.W-1 K. Srinivas, Petitioner.

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

20/

24.05.2021

Dismissal Order issued by R-2,

Ex.W-2

Dt.

25.05.2021

Name Removal memo issued by R-1,

Ex.W-3

Dt.

31.12.2020

Pay Slip of December 2020 showing (71.50) yearly total

musters during the year 2020.

Ex.W-4

Dt.

13.07.2017

Ultrasonogram of the abdomen report of Smt Narmada, wife

of petitioner, issued by SCCL Area Hospital, RG-I.

Ex.W-5

Dt.

14.07.2017

Discharge Summary of Smt Narmada, wife of petitioner,

issued by SCCL Area Hospital, RG-I.

Ex.W-6

Dt.

09.05.2018

OPD Card of Smt Narmada, wife of petitioner, issued by

Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad.

Ex.W-7

Dt.

14.05.2018

Discharge summary of inpatient treatment from 09.05.2018 to

14.05.2018, of Satya Kidney Centre & Super Specialty

Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.W-8

Dt.

26.01.2019

Medical Treatment & Prescription of SCCL Area Hospital,

Ramagundam to wife of the petitioner from 26.01.2019 to

08.06.2020.

Ex.W-9

Dt.

02.11.2019

Medical Treatment & Prescription of SCCL Area Hospital,

Ramagundam, for wife of the petitioner from 02.11.2019 to

07.01.2020.

Ex.W-10

Dt.

14.11.2019

Discharge Card of inpatient treatment from 08.11.2019 to

14.11.2019 of SCCL Group of hospitals, to petitioner.

Ex.W-11

Dt.

09.01.2020

Discharge Card of inpatient treatment from 07.01.2020 to

09.01.2020 of SCCL Group of Hospitals, for Narmada, wife

of the petitioner.

Ex.W-12

Dt.

12.10.2020

Medical treatment by Ambica Hospital, Godavarikhani to

wife of petitioner from 12.10.2020 to 13.11.2020.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1917

Ex.W-13

Dt.

-do-

Blood Examination Report, Bio-Chemical Report & other

reports of wife of petitioner.

Ex.W-14

Dt.

-do-

Ultrasound Scan of Whole Abdomen Report of wife of

petitioner by Aditya Diagnostics, CT Scan Centre.

Ex.W-15

Dt.

13.11.2021

Blood Examination Report, Bio-Chemical Report & other

reports of wife of petitioner.

Ex.W-16

Dt.

15.11.2021

Medical treatment and reports of Ambica Hospital,

Godavarikhani of wife of petitioner.

Ex.W-17

Dt.

-do-

Blood Examination Report, Bio-Chemical Report & other

reports of wife of petitioner.

Ex.W-18

Dt.

-do-

Ultrasound Scan of Whole Abdomen & Pelvis Report of wife

of petitioner by Lotus Scan Centre.

Ex.W-19

Dt.

30.12.2020

Complete Blood Picture report of Sigma Clinical Laboratory,

Godavarikhani.

Ex.W-20

Dt.

24.08.2021/

24.09.2021

Appeal rejection order issued by Director (PA&W).

Ex.W-21

Dt.

20.12.2021

O/c of Demand Letter of the petitioner by RPAD

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

30.03.2021

Attested Copy of Disciplinary action against petitioner vide

Lr.No.MMR/KK5/R/010/2021/1260

Ex.M-2

Dt.

Attested Copy of service and other particulars of petitioner

(Proforma-A)

Ex.M-3

Dt.

06.02.2021

Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner vide Lr.No.

MMR/KK5/R/007/21/499

Ex.M-4

Dt.

22.03.2021

Attested Copy of charge sheet acknowledgment received by the

petitioner

Ex.M-5

Dt.

22.03.2021

Attested Copy of explanation of charge sheet by the petitioner

Ex.M-6

Dt.

22.03.2021

Attested Copy of Enquiry Notice to the petitioner vide

Lr.No.MMR/KK5/R/010/2021/1127

Ex.M-7

Dt.

Attested Copy of Muster particulars of petitioner from Jan 2020

to Dec 2020

Ex.M-8

Dt.

23.08.2022

Disciplinary proceedings of Medical Board Lr.No. RKP/ MED/

W/22/9463 & (OP Receipt)

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024

का.आ. 888.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरीखानी ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल–22013/01/2024-आईआर(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024

S.O. 888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/04/2024.

[No. 22013/01/2024-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 12^th DAY OF MARCH, 2024.

I.D.No. 11 of 2022

Between:-

R. Sadanandam, S/o. Murahari, Age:46 Years, E.C.No.2382806, Ex-Badli Filler, C/o. S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate,

H.No.19-1-103/4, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani, Dist:Peddapalli,(T.S) – 505209.

…Petitioner.

AND

The Colliery Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., K.K-5 Incline, Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., P.O: Kothagudem,

District: Khammam (T.S).

...Respondents.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the

Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act, 1947 praying to set aside the dismissal order

Ref.No.MMR/PER/D/072/21/3431, dt.20/24.05.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’-

company to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits

and full back wages.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

2(a).

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

year 1997 as Badli Filler and rendered long service. During the year 2013, he was appointed as Badli Coal Filler for

(1) one year on trial basis as recommended by High Power Committee, by order dt.27.05.2013 and put-in (197)

musters during trial period. But, he was terminated from service by Office Order dt.31.5.2014, on completion of one

(1) year trial period. Later, he was appointed as Badli Filler by order dt.25.08.2014, posted to Mandamarri Area on

dt.04.09.2014 and he put-in more than (100) required musters per year as shown the charge sheet furnished here

under:-

1. Musters of 2013-14

during (01) year trial period.

(197) musters

2. Musters of 2015

(168) musters

3. Musters of 2016

(114) musters

4. Musters of 2020

(Charge sheet year period )

(101) Musters

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1919

The petitioner suffered from severe ill-health and piles problem and took prolonged treatment in the SSCL Hospitals

and other hospitals during the year 2017 and underwent surgery. Further during the year 2018 and 2019, the petitioner

met with accident and sustained fractures to his right hand wrist and right leg and he sustained injuries to his Testicles

in the underground mine while on duty. As such, he could put-in (45) musters in 2017 and (28) musters in 2018.

Later, he improved his attendance and put-in (80) musters during the year 2019. He was imparted prolonged medical

treatment in the respondents’ Company Hospitals and other hospitals at regular intervals. Due to health problems and

COVID-2019, the petitioner could put-in (101) musters and lock-down (20) musters during the year 2020.

2(b).

The petitioner continued to work in the under ground on one hand and undergoing treatment frequently on

the other hand and he improved his attendance during the years 2019 and 2020. But, the respondents have issued

charge sheet dt.06.02.2021 to the petitioner alleging:-

“25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

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

sanctioned leave”.

There is no deliberate absenteeism on his part and there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not attending to

duties during the charge sheet period of 2020. The respondents imparted treatment to the petitioner in the SCCL Area

Hospital and other hospitals. But without considering the true facts, the respondent No.2 dismissed the petitioner from

service vide Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021, illegally. He suffered from severe ill-health, chronic piles and he sustained

fractures to his right hand wrist and right leg due to accident. Further, he sustained injuries to his Testicles in the

underground mine while on duty and SSCL Area Hospital authorities made unfit, imparted treatment to the petitioner

for several days and later made him fit for duty during 2017 – 2019 and medical prescriptions, documents and

discharge summaries of SCCL and other Hospitals may be considered.

2(c).

The respondent No.1 served charge sheet to the petitioner on 19.02.2021, obtained written explanation from

him on the next day on 20.02.2021 and a formal domestic enquiry was conducted within a week, assuring that he will

be allowed to duty. He participated in the enquiry proceedings on 27.02.2021, deposed true facts of his ill-health, his

family problems and submitted Medical Certificates. But, the enquiry officer did not properly appreciate the

documentary and oral evidence in favour of the petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are very cryptic and he

gave his vague findings, which are quite biased and perverse. The respondent No.2 required the petitioner to make

representation on the findings report of the Enquiry Officer by letter dt.24.04.2021, to which he submitted his

satisfactory explanation. But, respondent No.2 dismissed him from service vide Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021 straight away,

without issuing any prior Show Cause Notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred

Appeal dt.05.06.2021 and moved from pillar to post before the respondents, but there is no response from the

company and he was not taken to duty. The petitioner’s health condition badly deteriorated and he suffered from

serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period. Since his wife was a chronic Kidney Patient, he imparted

prolonged treatment to her at regular intervals and there is sufficient and reasonable cause for the petitioner for not

attending to duties during charge sheet period and it cannot be termed as misconduct.

2(d).

Imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner without any prior show cause

notice proposing the said capital punishment is against the settled Law and contrary to the principles of natural

justice. The extremely harsh punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which

amounts to economic death of the petitioner. Ever since his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of

employment and could not secure any other alternative job inspite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor

family and has no other source of livelihood. Therefore, he prays to set aside the dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021

passed by the Respondent No.2 and to direct the Respondents’-Company to reinstate him into service with continuity

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

3. On the other side the Respondents/Management filed counter by admitting the employment of the

Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents’-Company, however, inter-alia contended that the petitioner initially he

worked as Badli Filler and dismissed him from the service. Later in compliance of the Memorandum of settlement

dt.09.08.2011, the petitioner was re-appointed in the company as Badli Filler (UG) for a period of one year on trial

basis vide Office Order dt.20-04-2013. Basing on the satisfactory performance during the one year trial period, he was

re-appointed afresh as Badli Filler vide office order dt.25.08.2014. According to section 52(2) of the Mines Act, 1953

an underground employee is required to put in minimum 190 musters and surface employee has to put to 240 musters.

The petitioner being underground employee is expected to put in 190 musters in a calendar year, but from the year

2014 to till the date of his dismissal, he did put in 190 musters in any of the calendar year and his attendance was not

satisfactory, the details of his attendance is mentioned below:-

Year

2014

2015

2016

2017

2016

2019

2020

2021

Musters

168

114

1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3(a).

That the contention of the petitioner that he suffered from TB severe ill health and chronic piles

problems and he underwent prolonged medical treatment in the respondent company hospital is in correct. If the

petitioner was really suffering from ill health, it becomes his primary responsibility to report sick in Colliery Hospital

or he should have informed to unit officers about his incapability to attend duties and he would have got leave or loss

of pay leave but he did not inform anything, without informing anything to his unit officers remained absent to the

duties which amounts to un-authorized absenteeism. He had put in 81 musters only in the year 2020 and for remaining

days he remained absent from duties without intimation and he was issued charge sheet dt.06.02.2021 with the

charges as under:-

25.25: Habitual Late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.

25.31

: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.

The petitioner submitted his written explanation on 20.02.2021, in his explanation he mentioned that he was not

attended duties in the year 2020 due to health reasons of himself and his wife, but he has not submitted any

documentary evidence in support of his claim. Along with this petition, he filed bunch of the documents which are

created and most of the documents filed in Sl.No.18 to Sl.No.34 pertains to the years 2017 and issued by Sri

Ramanjaneya clinic Mandamarri and Om Shanthi hari clinic Mandamarri. He collected those medical prescriptions

from the said clinics by managing them after dismissal, if really he was suffering with ill health, the company

providing treatment to its employees in its Hospital, the company appointed highly qualified doctors to provide

treatment to its employees and also providing medical facilities to its employees by referring them to Corporate

Hospital and also sending to the private hospitals depend on the necessities, if the petitioner is unable to attend the

duties the company medical officer will certify the same and the employee will get leave and there is no need to

attend the duties. But the petitioner not submitted any report of the company medical officer even he did not inform

anything to his unit in charge, he was remained absent from duties without prior information which amount to gross

negligence.

3(b). Further the enquiry officer has given full and fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defense. The

enquiry officer followed all the principles of natural justice and the petitioner not raised any objection to conduct

enquiry proceedings. Copy of enquiry report was supplied to petitioner vide letter dt.24.04.2021, to which he

submitted representation. He did not submit any documentary evidence about alleged ill-health which prevented him

from remaining absent from duties. The enquiry officer given fair findings basing on the documents and oral evidence

given by petitioner and his finding is not vague as claimed by the petitioner. He was given number of opportunities to

correct himself and to be regular to his duties by imposing minor penalties such as issued fine of Rs. 6,000/- for his

unauthorized absenteeism during the calendar year 2018 and stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for

the unauthorized absenteeism during the calendar year 2019. The company given opportunity to the petitioner with

hope that he may attend his duties. But, even after giving opportunities to improve his attendance, the petitioner

continued his absenteeism and there is no improvement in the attendance. The petitioner preferred appeal to the

Director (PA & W) with request to revoke the penalty of dismissal from service. Having gone through the past

attendance particulars and given opportunities, as the petitioner not changed his attitude and not improved his

attendance, the dismissal order was confirmed vide Ref. dt.22.11.2021.

3(c).

The petitioner filed many medical prescriptions and treatment given in Company dispensary. As per the OP

records available in the Company dispensary, the dates of unfit of the petitioner are:- 1. The petitioner was unfit on

21.04.2021 (Pain at right hand); 2. He was unfit on 02-02-2021 (Myolgia) 3. He was unfit on 28.01.2020 (Fever, body

pain) and 4. He was unfit on 20-09-2019 (LBA). The petitioner was not reported for fitness the details are as under:-

1. He has not reported for fitness on 05-05-2021, 2. He was not reported for fitness on 15-02-2021, 3. He was not

reported fitness on 04-02-2020 and 4. He was not reported for fitness on 04.10.2019. As per the company records the

petitioner and his family members were not referred to the referral hospital. It is submitted that as per Op records, the

diseases/ailments suffered by the petitioner was not really disable/prevent him from attending his duty/job regularly.

Hence the claim of the petitioner is cooked up to gain the sympathy of the Hon’ble court. The petitioner not utilised

the opportunities given by the company and not improved his attendance. Hence, the Respondent Company was

constrained to dismiss the petitioner/workman from the company vide order dt.20/24.05.2021, which is justified. The

other allegations of the petition are denied and the Respondents’-Company prayed to dismiss the petition, without

granting any relief to the petitioner.

4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he himself was got examined as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W-1

to Ex.W-98 on his behalf. On the other side for the Respondents’-Company. Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-7 were marked with

consent.

Arguments of the learned counsel for Petitioner/workman as well as learned counsel for the

Respondents/Management heard. Perused the record produced before this Tribunal, written arguments and citations.

Now the points for consideration are:-

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

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1921

Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on evidence or not?

Whether the dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is entitled to

reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back wages?

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

7. From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’ Company, these are the admitted facts that the

petitioner/workman worked as Badli-Filler (Underground) in the Respondents’-Company and he was dismissed from

service. Now coming to the documentary evidence on both sides, on behalf of the Respondents’/Company, Ex.M-1 to

Ex.M-7 were marked, wherein, Ex.M-1 is the attested copy of letter for taking suitable disciplinary action against the

petitioner. Ex.M-2 is the enquiry notice and proceedings of enquiry. Ex.M-3 is the explanation to the Charge Sheet

and Ex.M-4 is the Ack., of the petitioner to the charge sheet. Ex.M-5 is the charge sheet and Ex.M-6 is the service and

other particulars of the petitioner. Ex.M-7 is the proceedings of the medical board and OP receipts of the petitioner.

7(a). On the other side, the petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 to W-98 on his behalf, wherein, Ex.W-1 is Dismissal Order

issued by R-2 and Ex.W-2 is Name Removal memo issued by R-1. Ex.W-3 is Medical prescription & treatment

imparted to petitioner by SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP). Ex.W-4 and Ex.W-5 are Medical prescriptions and

treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP) from 21.11.2017 to 24.11.2017. Ex.W-6 is O.P

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-7 to

Ex.W-10 are O.P Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri

Area. Ex.W-11 to Ex.W-14 are Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by Sri Ramanjaneya Clinic,

Mandamarri. Ex.W-15 to Ex.W-28 are Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by Om Shanthi Hari

Clinic, Mandamarri. Ex.W-29 to Ex.W-36 are O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-37 is Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP). Ex.W-38 is Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL

Area Hospital, RKP (SRP) from 17.09.2018 to 16.10.2018. Ex.W-39 to are Ex.W-50 are Medical prescriptions and

treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP). Ex.W-51 to Ex.W-53 are O.P Medical

prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-54 is O.P

Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from

07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. Ex.W-55 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK

Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. Ex.W-56 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment

imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. Ex.W-57 is

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from

07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. Ex.W-58 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK

Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. Ex.W-59 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment

imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. Ex.W-60 is

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from

02.07.2019 to 08.07.2019. Ex.W-61 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK

Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-62 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL

KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.09.2019 to 12.09.2019. Ex.W-63 is O.P Medical prescriptions and

treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.09.2019 to 12.09.2019.

Ex.W-64 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri

Area from 07.09.2019 to 12.09.2019. Ex.W-65 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area from 07.09.2019 to 12.09.2019.

7(b). Further, Ex.W-66 to Ex.W-74 are Laboratory Investigations of the petitioner issued by the SCCL Hospital.

Ex.W-75 to Ex.W-77 are the Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by Sai Krishna Hospital,

Multi-specialty & Critical Care, Karimnagar. Ex.W-78 to Ex.W-85 are the O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment

imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-86 to Ex.W-89 are Medical prescriptions

and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP). Ex.W-90 is O.P Medical prescriptions and

treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-91 is Fit & Unfit Certificate for

unfit period from 02.02.2021 to 15.02.2021 of the petitioner issued by SCCL KK-1 Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-92 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri

Area. Ex.W-93 is Fit & Unfit Certificate for unfit period from 21.04.2021 to 05.05.2021 of the petitioner issued by

SCCL KK-1 Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-94 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to

petitioner by SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. Ex.W-95 is Representation (Appeal) of petitioner forwarded

by R-2 on 12.06.2021. Ex.W-96 is Appeal rejection order issued by Director (PA&W). Ex.W-97 is O/c of Demand

Letter of the petitioner by RPAD. Ex.W-98 is O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area. The above documents of both sides are not in much dispute by either side.

8. Here, the learned counsel for the respondents’-company has strenuously argued that since the coal mining industry

is a central subject the Appropriate Government for Respondent/Management is Central Government, which

established Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad for adjudication of Industrial Disputes

and the Petitioner ought to have approached the said Tribunal for the redressal of grievance, if any. But, the Petitioner

1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

conveniently avoided filing his petition before the Tribunal established by the Central Government and hence it is not

maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on this ground alone.

8(a). The learned counsel for the respondents’-company further argued the petitioner initially worked as Badli Filler

and dismissed him from the service. Later he was re-appointed in the company as Badli Filler (UG) for a period of

one year on trial basis vide Office Order dt.20.04.2013. Basing on the satisfactory performance during the one year

trial period, he was re-appointed afresh as Badli Filler vide office order dt.25.08.2014. The contention of petitioner

that he suffered from TB severe ill health and chronic piles problems and he underwent prolonged medical treatment

in the respondent company hospital is in correct. If the petitioner was really suffering from ill health, it becomes his

primary responsibility to report sick in Colliery Hospital or he should have informed to unit officers about his

incapability to attend duties and he would have got leave or loss of pay leave but he did not inform anything, without

informing anything to his unit officers remained absent to the duties which amounts to un-authorized absenteeism. He

had put in 81 musters only in the year 2020 and for remaining days he remained absent from duties without intimation

and he was issued charge sheet dt.06.02.2021. The petitioner submitted his written explanation on 20.02.2021, in his

explanation he mentioned that he was not attended duties in the year 2020 due to health reasons of himself and his

wife, but he has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The bunch of medical certificates

filed by him are created and if really he was suffering with ill health, the company appointed highly qualified doctors

to provide treatment to its employees and also providing medical facilities to its employees by referring them to

Corporate Hospital and also sending to the private hospitals depend on the necessities. The company medical officer

will certify the same and employee will get leave and there is no need to attend the duties. But the petitioner not

submitted any report of the company medical officer even he did not inform anything to his unit in charge, he was

remained absent from duties without prior information which amount to gross negligence.

8(b). Further the learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the enquiry officer has given full and fair

opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defense. The enquiry officer followed all the principles of natural justice

and the petitioner not raised any objection to conduct enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer given fair findings

basing on the documents and oral evidence and the petitioner was given number of opportunities to correct himself

and to be regular to his duties by imposing minor penalties, with hope that he may attend his duties. But, even after

giving opportunities to improve his attendance, the petitioner continued his absenteeism and there is no improvement

in the attendance. The petitioner not utilized the opportunities given by the company and not improved his attendance.

Hence, the Respondent Company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from the company by order

dt.20/24.05.2021, which is justified. His appeal was rejected for want of merits, vide Ref. dt.22.11.2021.

8(c).

The learned counsel for the respondents’-company further argued that the petitioner filed many medical

prescriptions and treatment given in Company dispensary. As per the OP records available in the Company

dispensary, the dates of unfit of the petitioner are: 1.The petitioner was unfit on 21.04.2021 (Pain at right hand); 2. He

was unfit on 02.02.2021 (Myolgia) 3. He was unfit on 28.01.2020 (Fever, body pain) and 4. He was unfit on

20.09.2018(LBA). The petitioner was not reported for fitness the details are:- 1. He has not reported for fitness on

05.05.2021, 2. He was not reported for fitness on 15.02.2021, 3. He was not reported fitness on 04.02.2020 and 4. He

was not reported for fitness on 04.10.2019. As per the company records the petitioner and his family members were

not referred to the referral hospital. As per Op records, the diseases/ailments suffered by the petitioner was not really

disable/prevent him from attending his duty/job regularly. The petitioner not utilized the opportunities given by the

company and not improved his attendance. Hence, the Respondent Company dismissed him from service vide order

dt.20/24.05.2021, which is justified. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition, without granting any relief to the

petitioner/workman.

9. Per contra, on the point of jurisdiction the learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman contended that as per the

Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa

Vs. Cotton Corporation of India, this Tribunal has jurisdiction over Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., to entertain

the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner/workman though the appropriate Govt. is Central Govt., The petitioner

need not raise the Industrial Dispute compulsorily before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad alone, as

contended by the respondents’ company. Hence, this I.D petition filed by petitioner/ workman is well maintainable

before this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute on merits.

9(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman further contended that the Petitioner/Workman was appointed in

the Respondents’-Company initially during the year 1997 as Badli Filler and rendered long service. During the year

2013, he was appointed as Badli Coal Filler for (1) one year on trial basis as recommended by the High Power

Committee, by order dt.27.05.2013 and put-in (197) musters during trial period. But, he was terminated from service

by Office Order dt.31.5.2014, on completion of one (01) year trial period. Later, he was appointed as Badli Filler by

order dt.25.08.2014 and posted to Mandamarri Area through Office Order dt.04.09.2014 and he put-in more than

(100) required musters per year. He suffered from chronic piles problem and took prolonged treatment SSCL

Hospitals and other hospitals during the year 2017 and underwent surgery. Further during the year 2018 and 2019, the

petitioner met with accident and sustained fractures to his right hand wrist and right leg and he sustained injuries to

his Testicles in the underground mine while on duty. As such, he could put-in (45) musters in 2017 and (28) musters

in 2018. Later, he improved his attendance and put-in (80) musters during the year 2019. He was imparted prolonged

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1923

medical treatment in the respondents’ Company Hospitals and other hospitals at regular intervals. Due to health

problems and COVID-2019, the petitioner could put-in (101) musters and lock-down (20) musters during the year

2020. But, the respondents have issued charge sheet dt.06.02.2021 to which he submitted written explanation and a

formal domestic enquiry was conducted within a week, assuring that he will be allowed to duty. He participated in the

enquiry proceedings on 27.02.2021, deposed true facts of his ill-health, his family problems and submitted Medical

Certificates. But, the enquiry officer did not properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence in favour of the

petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are very cryptic and he gave his vague findings, which are quite biased

and perverse. The respondent No.2 dismissed him from service vide Ref. dt.20/24.05.2021 straight away, without

issuing any prior Show Cause Notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner’s health

condition badly deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period. Since his wife

was a chronic Kidney Patient, he imparted prolonged treatment to her at regular intervals and there is sufficient and

reasonable cause for the petitioner for not attending to duties during charge sheet period and it cannot be termed as

misconduct.

9(b).

The learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman further argued that imposing the capital punishment of

dismissal from service without any prior show cause notice is against the principles of natural justice. The extremely

harsh punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which amounts to economic death

of the petitioner. Ever since his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of employment and could not secure any

other alternative job in spite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other source of

livelihood. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order and to direct the Respondents’-Company to reinstate

the petitioner/workman into service with continuity of service, all consequential attendant benefits and full back

wages.

POINT No. 1:

10.

Here, on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is settled Law that as per the Division Bench

Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa Vs. Cotton

Corporation of India, this Tribunal has got every jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the

petitioner/workman who was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Even though, the Central Govt. is

appropriate Govt., for the respondents’-Company, the petitioner need not compulsorily raise the Industrial Dispute

before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, as contended by the respondents’ company; and he can file

this I.D. case before this Tribunal as well. Hence, the contentions of the respondents’-company on the point of

jurisdiction of this Tribunal are not sustainable under Law. Accordingly, it is answered in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondents’ company.

11.

Further, in this matter, initially the petitioner/workman denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report.

But on 03.10.2023, the learned counsel for petitioner filed memo U/Sec.11-A of I.D Act by accepting the procedure

of domestic enquiry. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the facts of the case and the

findings are not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion with

regard to finding guilty or not based on evidence. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

POINT No. 2 & 3:

12.

In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as Respondents/corporation as well as in view of

the arguments of their respective counsel now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the

petitioner was dismissed from service by Proc. dt.20/24.05.2021 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was absent

from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause during the year 2020.

13. From a perusal of the record, it shows that Charge Sheet dt.06.02.2021 was issued to the petitioner, which is

marked as Ex.M-5. It is evident from the charge sheet that the petitioner absented to duties for 187 days and had put-

in only 81 actual musters during the year 2020 and further he put in 168 muster during the year 2015 and 114 musters

during the year 2016. The petitioner submitted his explanation to charge sheet, which is marked as Ex.M-3 wherein

he stated that he suffered from ill-health and undergone operation, that due to ill-health and family problems he could

not attend to this duties regularly. Further, a perusal of Ex.M-2 proceedings of enquiry shows that the

Petitioner/Workman participated in the domestic enquiry and deposed that he absented from duty from January 2020

to December 2020 for 187 days, that due to ill-health and family problems he was unable to attend to his regularly

during the above charge sheet period of 2020. He assured that he will attend to his duties regularly and requested to

take a lenient view. Further, the cut-leaf statement from January 2020 to December 2020 produced before the Enquiry

Officer shows 122 actual musters, 20 leaves and 164 absent days of the petitioner. From the Enquiry Report which is

also under Ex.M-2, it is evident that the petitioner absented to duty without sanctioned leave and he accepted charge,

though pleaded that due to health problems, he remained absent to his duties. The domestic enquiry file in original

together with enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Report with service particulars of the petitioner were submitted to the

respondent No.2 General Manager, vide letter dt.19.03.2021, which is marked as Ex.M-1. Further, the service

particulars of the petitioner produced before this Tribunal under Ex.M-6 it is evident that the petitioner put-in 168

musters during the 2015, 114 musters during the year 2016 and 122 musters during the year 2020 i.e., charge sheet

1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

year. The proceedings dt.23.08.2022 of the Dy. Chief Medical Officer, SCCL Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur is

marked as Ex.M-7, wherein, O.P records of the petitioner/workman were furnished to respondent No.2 General

Manager. Dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021 is marked as Ex.W-3 and appeal submitted by the petitioner was rejected

by the Director (PA&W) by order dt.22.11.2021, which is marked as Ex.W-96.

13(a). Apart from the above, the petitioner/workman submitted more than 90 medical prescriptions and treatment

imparted to him, which are marked as Ex.W-3 to Ex.W-94 and Ex.W-98. Most of the medical documents submitted

by the petitioner were issued by the SCCL Hospitals, which prima-facie show that the petitioner suffused from ill-

health during the years 2017 to 2020. The petitioner explained that due to ill-health and family problems, he absented

to duties during the charge sheeted year of 2020 and prayed to consider his case sympathetically. However, the

respondents/ company dismissed the petitioner/workman from service by Proc. dt.20/24.05.2021 which is marked as

Ex.W-1. Thus, it is evident from the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report under Ex.M-2 as well as the material on

record, that the petitioner had not put in minimum required musters of 190 and he put-in only 122 musters during the

year 2020. For which, petitioner submitted that due to ill-health he was unable to perform duty regularly during the

charge sheet period and submitted more than 90 medical prescriptions and reports, which are marked as Ex.W-3 to

Ex.W-94 and Ex.W-98. Further, the above medical documents of the petitioner lend support to his enquiry statement

under Ex.M-2 and his explanation to the charge sheet under Ex.M-3; these documents clearly show that the

petitioner/workman suffered from ill-health during the charge sheet period and that the defense put-forth by him is

plausible. However, it is clear that the petitioner has not attended to duties regularly and the charge was proved

against him. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents/company has no axe to grind against the petitioner. Hence,

this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the charge leveled against the petitioner/workman is proved and

misconduct of the workman is established basing on the evidence and the findings of enquiry officer are not perverse.

13(b). Apart from the above, the contention of the Petitioner/ Workman is that he was appointed in the year 1997

and he served the company for (21) years. The petitioner met with accident and sustained fractures to his right hand

wrist and right leg and he sustained injuries to his Testicles in the underground mine while on duty during the years

2018-2019. He improved his attendance and put-in (101) musters and lock-down (20) musters during the year 2020.

He hails from a very poor family, he has got no other livelihood and facing untold financial problems, and prayed to

consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act. Here, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following

citations:-

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN AIR 1988 SC 303 – Between: Scooter India

Ltd, Labour Court, Lucknow & ors:

In this case, the Labour Court while holding that enquiry had conformed to statutory prescriptions and

principles of natural justice, yet held that order of termination was not justified and ordered for reinstating

employee with 75% back wages. Wide powers are vested in Labour Court or Tribunal. Labour Court can

temper justice with mercy and give an opportunity to an erring workman to reform himself. Order of Labour

Court granting relief of reinstatement with 75% back wages was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

HON’BLE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN W.A. No.1101/2008 and W.P.No.7671 of 2000, dt.07.04.2009

D.B. Judgment:

In this case, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service and half-of back wages. The

Hon’ble High Court held that since the petitioner remained unemployed from the date of removal, modified

the award of Labour Court by granting full back wages.

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, dt.24.08.2009 in Civil Appeal No.5762 of 2009, Between: Coal India

Ltd. & Anr Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudari and others.

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dt.14.05.2009 Between: Jagadish Singh Vs. Punjab Engineering

College and others.

In the above Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Sl.No.3 & 4 reveals that the Hon’ble Court held that the

punishment should be in commensurate with the gravity of charges and not shockingly disproportionate.

13(c). Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court

reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), wherein their lordships observed that:

“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted

keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the

Constitution. The Labour Court is conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A. The Industrial Court

conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A of the Act for granting appropriate relief”.

14. Therefore, in view of the above decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case, if we come to quantum of

sentence it is settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised U/Sec.11-A is available only on the existence of

certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to shock the conscience of

the Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1925

conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. A perusal of record shows

that the petitioner suffered from ill-health and submitted several medical documents showing the treatment imparted

to him by SCCL Hospitals. Further, the petitioner submitted that he hails from a very poor family and has got no other

livelihood and facing untold financial problems, hence prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D., Act. The

petitioner is out of employment from 2021 and there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his absence to duties

during charge sheet period, as the ill-health suffered by the petitioner is supported by the medical record of

respondents’ SCCL-company produced before this Tribunal. In view of the above mitigating circumstances of the

case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the

respondents’/company against the petitioner deserves to be set aside since the disciplinary authority cannot be

permitted to act arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight between David and Goliath

as in the present case on hand.

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

mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the punishment of dismissal

from service deserves to be set aside. However, since the charge leveled against the petitioner are proved, the relief is

to be molded by this Tribunal appropriately and considering the mitigating circumstances discussed supra, the

petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service only. But, the petitioner is not entitled to

any back wages and any attendant benefits during the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to till date

since he might have gainfully employed during pendency of this Industrial Dispute. Hence, the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed by the Respondents’ Company is hereby modified appropriately. Accordingly, the

Point No.2 & 3 are answered.

16.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order dt.20/24.05.2021, under Ex.W-3

passed by the Respondent No.2 is hereby modified appropriately. The respondents’/company is directed to reinstate

the petitioner into service with continuity of service only, but, without any attendant benefits and without any back

wages during the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to till date. The petitioner is entitled to the salary

only from the date of publication this Award. Copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12^th day of March,

2024.

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN:-

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

WW-1 R.Sadanandam, Petitioner.

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

20/

24.05.2021

Dismissal Order issued by R-2,

Ex.W-2

Dt.

25.05.2021

Name Removal memo issued by R-1,

Ex.W-3

Dt.

09.09.2017

Medical prescription & treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL

Area Hospital, RKP (SRP).

Ex.W-4

Dt.

21.11.2017

-do- from 21.11.2017 to 24.11.2017

Ex.W-5

Dt.

09.12.2017

-do-

Ex.W-6

Dt.

09.09.2017

O.P Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-7

Dt.

06.11.2017

-do-

Ex.W-8

Dt.

20.11.2017

-do-

1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W-9

Dt.

09.12.2017

-do-

Ex.W-10

Dt.

15.12.2017

-do-

Ex.W-11

Dt.

19.01.2017

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by Sri

Ramanjaneya Clinic, Mandamarri.

Ex.W-12

Dt.

24.08.2017

-do-

Ex.W-13

Dt.

08.12.2017

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by Sri

Ramanjaneya Clinic, Mandamarri.

Ex.W-14

Dt.

15.09.2018

-do-

Ex.W-15

Dt.

25.05.2017

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by Om

Shanthi Hari Clinic, Mandamarri.

Ex.W-16

Dt.

26.05.2017

-do-

Ex.W-17

Dt.

27.05.2017

-do-

Ex.W-18

Dt.

28.05.2017

-do-

Ex.W-19

Dt.

03.06.2017

-do-

Ex.W-20

Dt.

05.06.2017

-do-

Ex.W-21

Dt.

17.06.2017

-do-

Ex.W-22

Dt.

18.06.2017

-do-

Ex.W-23

Dt.

22.06.2017

-do-

Ex.W-24

Dt.

25.06.2017

-do-

Ex.W-25

Dt.

02.07.2017

-do-

Ex.W-26

Dt.

10.07.2017

-do-

Ex.W-27

Dt.

18.07.2017

-do-

Ex.W-28

Dt.

20.07.2017

-do-

Ex.W-29

Dt.

23.01.2018

O.P Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-30

Dt.

16.02.2018

-do-

Ex.W-31

Dt.

10.08.2018

-do-

Ex.W-32

Dt.

17.09.2018

-do-

Ex.W-33

Dt.

24.09.2018

-do-

Ex.W-34

Dt.

16.11.2018

-do-

Ex.W-35

Dt.

10.12.2018

-do-

Ex.W-36

Dt.

31.12.2018

-do-

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1927

Ex.W-37

Dt.

24.01.2018

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP).

Ex.W-38

Dt.

17.09.2018

-do- from 17.09.2018 to 16.10.2018

Ex.W-39

Dt.

24.09.2018

Medical prescription & treatment by SCCL Area Hospital, RKP

(SRP).

Ex.W-40

Dt.

25.09.2018

Medical prescription & treatment by SCCL Area Hospital, RKP

(SRP).

Ex.W-41

Dt.

16.10.2018

-do-

Ex.W-42

Dt.

17.10.2018

-do-

Ex.W-43

Dt.

16.11.2018

-do-

Ex.W-44

Dt.

01.01.2019

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL Area Hospital, RKP (SRP).

Ex.W-45

Dt.

17.01.2019

-do-

Ex.W-46

Dt.

22.02.2019

-do-

Ex.W-47

Dt.

07.03.2019

-do-

Ex.W-48

Dt.

03.04.2019

-do-

Ex.W-49

Dt.

03.07.2019

-do-

Ex.W-50

Dt.

28.09.2019

-do-

Ex.W-51

Dt.

11.01.2019

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-52

Dt.

17.01.2019

-do-

Ex.W-53

Dt.

22.02.2019

-do-

Ex.W-54

Dt.

07.03.2019

-do- from 07.03.2019 to 11.03.2019.

Ex.W-55

Dt.

03.04.2019

-do-

Ex.W-56

Dt.

27.04.2019

-do-

Ex.W-57

Dt.

14.05.2019

-do-

Ex.W-58

Dt.

16.05.2019

-do-

Ex.W-59

Dt.

19.06.2019

-do-

Ex.W-60

Dt.

02.07.2019

-do- from 02.07.2019 to 08.07.2019

Ex.W-61

Dt.

16.07.2019

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-62

Dt.

07.09.2019

-do- from 07.09.2019 to 12.09.2019

Ex.W-63

Dt.

28.10.2019

-do-

1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W-64

Dt.

29.11.2019

-do-

Ex.W-65

Dt.

30.12.2019

-do-

Ex.W-66

Dt.

22.01.2019

Laboratory Investigation of petitioner issued by SCCL Hospital.

Ex.W-67

Dt.

17.04.2019

Laboratory Investigation of petitioner issued by SCCL Hospital.

Ex.W-68

Dt.

01.05.2019

-do-

Ex.W-69

Dt.

24.05.2019

-do-

Ex.W-70

Dt.

04.06.2019

-do-

Ex.W-71

Dt.

26.06.2019

-do-

Ex.W-72

Dt.

03.07.2019

-do-

Ex.W-73

Dt.

14.02.2020

-do-

Ex.W-74

Dt.

06.04.2021

-do-

Ex.W-75

Dt.

25.08.2019

Medical prescription and treatment imparted to petitioner by Sai

Krishna Hospital, Multi-specialty & Critical Care, Karimnagar.

Ex.W-76

Dt.

04.09.2019

-do-

Ex.W-77

Dt.

15.09.2019

-do-

Ex.W-78

Dt.

17.02.2020

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-79

Dt.

01.06.2020

-do-

Ex.W-80

Dt.

15.06.2020

-do-

Ex.W-81

Dt.

08.08.2020

-do-

Ex.W-82

Dt.

28.09.2020

-do-

Ex.W-83

Dt.

14.10.2020

-do-

Ex.W-84

Dt.

10.11.2020

-do-

Ex.W-85

Dt.

21.11.2020

-do-

Ex.W-86

Dt.

22.01.2020

Medical prescription & treatment imparted to petitioner by SCCL

Area Hospital, RKP (SRP).

Ex.W-87

Dt.

17.02.2020

-do-

Ex.W-88

Dt.

02.05.2020

-do-

Ex.W-89

Dt.

20.02.2021

-do-

Ex.W-90

Dt.

11.01.2021

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1929

Ex.W-91

Dt.

02.02.2021

Fit & Unfit Certificate from 02.02.2021 to 15.02.2021 of the

petitioner, by SCCL KK-1 Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-92

Dt.

20.02.2021

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-93

Dt.

21.04.2021

Fit & Unfit Certificate for unfit period from 21.04.2021 to

05.05.2021 of the petitioner, issued by SCCL KK-1 Dispensary,

Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-94

Dt.

22.05.2021

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

Ex.W-95

Dt.

05.06.2021

Representation (Appeal) of petitioner forwarded by R-2 on

12.06.2021.

Ex.W-96

Dt.

22.10.2021

22.11.2021

Appeal rejection order issued by Director (PA&W).

Ex.W-97

Dt.

20.12.2021

O/c of Demand Letter of the petitioner by RPAD

Ex.W-98

Dt.

22.05.2021

O.P Medical prescriptions and treatment imparted to petitioner by

SCCL KK Dispensary, Mandamarri Area.

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

19.03.2021

Attested copy of letter for taking suitable disciplinary action

against the petitioner.

Ex.M-2

Dt.

22.02.2021

Enquiry notice and proceedings of enquiry.

Ex.M-3

Dt.

20.02.2021

Explanation to the Charge Sheet

Ex.M-4

Dt.

19.02.2021

Ack., of the petitioner to the charge sheet.

Ex.M-5

Dt.

06.02.2021

Charge sheet

Ex.M-6

Dt.

Service and other particulars of the petitioner.

Ex.M-7

Dt.

23.08.2022

Proceedings of the medical board and OP receipts of the

petitioner.

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024

का.आ. 889.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरीखानी ds iapkV (

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल–22013/01/2024-आईआर(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024

S.O. 889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/04/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director

1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 18, 2024/VAISAKHA 28, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 20^th DAY OF MARCH, 2024.

I.D.No. 10 of 2022

Between:-

K. Chiranjeevi, S/o. Mallesham, 37 Years, E.C. 2377869, Ex-Badli Filler, C/o. S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate,

H. No. 19-1-103/4, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani, Dist:Peddapalli,(T.S) – 505209.

…Petitioner.

AND

The Colliery Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., K.K-1 Incline, Mandamarri Area,

Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, District: Mancherial (T.S).

The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., P.O: Kothagudem,

District: Khammam (T.S).

...Respondents.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the

Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD

This is a petition filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act, 1947 praying to set aside the dismissal order

Ref.No.MMR/PER/D/072/20/6253, dt.20/27.10.2020 passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents’-

company to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, all other consequential attendant benefits

and full back wages.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

2(a).

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

2011 as Badli Filler, under dependant employment in place of his father Sri Mallesham, Ex-Shovel Operator, who

died while in service during the year 2007. He served the respondents’ company and put-in more than the (100)

required musters per year and his performance from 2012 to 2017 is furnished here under:-

1. Musters of 2012

(136) musters

2. Musters of 2013

(135) musters

3. Musters of 2014

(112) musters

4. Musters of 2015

(0) musters

Due to severe ill-health, he was imparted prolonged treatment; but, penalty of (10) days suspension imposed for

2015 absenteeism

5. Musters of 2016

(19) musters

Due to severe ill-health, he was imparted prolonged treatment; but warning letter issued for 2016 absenteeism

6. Musters of 2017

(104) musters

Improved his attendance during the year 2017 by (104) musters.

7. Musters of 2018

(Charge sheet year)

Due to Brain blood clot, Heart Problem, ill-health & seizures, he was imparted prolonged treatment at SCCL &

KIMS Hospitals.

[भाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मई 18, 2024/वैिाख 28, 1946

1931

2(b).

The petitioner suffered from chronic ill-health, heart problem and recurrent seizures from the year 2015. He

underwent prolonged medical treatment in the respondents’ Company Hospitals and other referral hospitals at regular

intervals. But, his health was not cured completely and as he continued to work on one hand and undergoing

treatment frequently on the other hand, his health completely deteriorated from 2018. But, the respondent issued

charge sheet dt.13.02.2019 to the petitioner alleging:-

“25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

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

sanctioned leave”.

There is no deliberate absenteeism on the part of the petitioner and there is reasonable and sufficient cause for his not

attending to duties regularly during the charge sheet period of 2018. The respondents imparted treatment to the

petitioner in the SCCL Area Hospital and referred him to KIMS Hospital at Hyderabad, due to Brain Blood Clot and

Heart Problems. He was imparted prolonged treatment during the years 2018 – 2019, but without considering the true

facts, the 2^nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service through Ref. dt.20/27.10.2020, illegally.

2(c). The petitioner suffered from severe ill-health, heart problem and brain blood clot and was imparted treatment in

the SCCL Area Hospital, RKP, Mandamarri Area. But, since his health condition was not improved, the respondents

have referred the petitioner to KIM Hospital, Hyderabad during the years 2018 & 2019, through reference letters

dt.08.11.2018 and 06.05.2019. The petitioner was getting “frequent seizures (Focal and generalized) even after

giving loading dose. He was incubated in view of poor GCS and ventilator support was given at KIMS Hospital.

MRI (Brain) with MRV was done s/o hematoma noted involving left parietal lobe (cortical and sub-cortical) with

superior sagittal sinus and bilateral transverse sinus (left>right) thrombosis. Patient was treated with Inj. Midaz,

steroid, LMWH, ant edema measures along with antiepileptic drugs and other supportive drugs. 2D Echo was done.

s/o RV dysfunction, cardiologist consultation was taken and advice followed. Bilateral LL venous Doppler was done

and s/o chronic DVT in right LL. Hematologist consultation was taken for recurrent thrombotic events and advised

further evaluation. CT Scan (Brain) were done and noted that left temporoparietal bleed was resolving with

surrounding edema and no significant mass effect.” Medical documents and discharge summary may kindly be taken

into consideration by this Court.

2(d).

Formal domestic enquiry was conducted while the petitioner was undergoing treatment and he participated in

the enquiry on 21.09.2019, deposed the above true facts of his ill-health and his family problems and also submitted

Medical Certificates. But, the enquiry officer did not properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence in favour

of the petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are very cryptic and he gave his vague findings, which are quite

biased and perverse. The respondent No.2 required the petitioner to make representation on the findings report of the

Enquiry Officer by letter dt.25.10.2019, which was sent by Security Guard to his house; though the respondents are

aware that his house was locked since (2) years, as he was undergoing prolonged treatment at Hyderabad. As such, he

could not submit any representation on the findings report of Enquiry Officer. But, respondent No.2 dismissed him

from service vide Ref. dt.20/27.10.2020 straight away, without issuing any prior Show Cause Notice proposing the

punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred Appeal and moved from pillar to post before the respondents, but

there is no response from the company and he was not taken to duty. The petitioner’s health condition badly

deteriorated and he suffered from serious ill health, during the charge sheeted period and there is sufficient and

reasonable cause for the petitioner for not attending to duties during charge sheet period and it cannot be termed as

misconduct.

2(e).

Further, imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner without any prior show

cause notice proposing the said capital punishment is against the settled Law and contrary to the principles of natural

justice. The extremely harsh punishment of dismissal is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate, which

amounts to his economic death. Ever since his dismissal from service, the petitioner is out of employment and could

not secure any other alternative job inspite of his best efforts. He hails from a very poor family and has no other

source of livelihood. Therefore, he prays to set aside the dismissal order dt.20/27.10.2020 passed by the Respondent

No.2 and to direct the Respondents’-Company to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, all

consequential attendant benefits and full back wages.