3003 GI/2024

(2071)

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. 20]

नई दिल् ली, मई 19—मई 25, 2024, िजनवार/ वैिाख 29 —ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

No. 20]

NEW DELHI, MAY 19—MAY 25, 2024, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 29– JYAISHTHA 4, 1946

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

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 935.—भारतीय जनयाात-आयात बैंक अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1) के

खंड (ड.) के उप-खंड (i) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री जवपुल बंसल के स्ट्थान पर

श्री जसद्धाथा मिािन, संयुि सजचव, वाजिज्य जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक भारतीय जनयाात-आयात

बैंक (एजजिम बैंक) के बोडा में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै।

[फा. सं. 9/1/2022-आईएफ-I]

सुभाषचन्र अमीन, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12062024-254642

CG-DL-W-12062024-254642

2072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 935.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Clause (i) 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 Siddharth Mahajan, Joint Secretary, Department of Commerce, as Director on the Board of Export Import Bank

of India (Exim Bank) vice Shri Vipul Bansal, with immediate effect and until further orders.

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

SUBHASHCHANDRA AMIN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 936.—बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजिकरि अजिजनयम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की िारा 4 द्वारा

प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, युनाइटेड इंजडया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड, चेन्नई के

भूतपूवा अध्यक्ष-सि-प्रबंि जनिेिक श्री सत्यिीत जत्रपाठी को चार लाख रुपए प्रजतमाि (आवास और कार की सुजविा के

जबना) के समेदकत वेतन पैकेि पर कायाभार ग्रिि करने की तारीख से 62 वषा की आयु प्राप्त करने तक अथवा अगले आिेिों

तक, िो भी पिले िो, भारतीय बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजिकरि (इरडाई) में पूिाकाजलक सिस्ट्य (जवतरि) जनयुि

करती िै।

[फा. सं. आर-12011/02/2023-बीमा-I]

अब्िुल गुफरान, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 936.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Satyajit Tripathy, former Chairman-cum-

Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai as Whole-Time Member (Distribution) in the

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), on a consolidated pay package of four lakh rupees per

month (without facility of house and car), with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post till he attains the age of

62 years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. R-12011/02/2023-Ins.I]

ABDUL GUFRAN, Under Secy.

जविेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2024

का.आ. 937.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरि में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार, मई 14, 2024 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवािन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय

जमिनों/पोस्ट्टों में सिायक कांसुलर अजिकाररयों के रूप में इस मंत्रालय के नीचे उजल्लजखत अजिकाररयों की जनयुजि करता

िै:

क्रम

सं.

अजिकारी का नाम और पि

जमिन / पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिायक कांसुलर

अजिकारी के रूप में जनयुि दकया गया िै

श्री स्ट्वपन कुमार ििोंग, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय िूतावास, कुवैत

श्री पासांग त्सेररंग, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय उच्चायोग, मापुटो,मोजाजबबक

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2024(16)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2073

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 14th May, 2024

S.O. 937.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 the below mentioned

officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services

with effect from May 14, 2024:

Sl.

No.

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Mr. Swapan Kumar Hajong, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Kuwait

Mr. Passang Tsering, Assistant Section Officer

High Commission of India, Maputo, Mozambique

[F. No.T.4330/01/2024(16)]

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

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 938.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरि में वैिाजनक आिेि।

एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार, मई 20, 2024 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवािन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय

िै:

क्रम

सं.

अजिकारी का नाम और पि

जमिन / पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी

के रूप में जनयुि दकया गया िै

श्री अनूप मेनोन अंबलप्पाट्ट,सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय िूतावास, बिरीन

श्री रजव छेत्री,सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी

भारतीय िूतावास, बग़िाि

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2024(17)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 938.—Statutory Order in pursuance of 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 the below mentioned

officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services

with effect from May 20, 2024:

S. No Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Mr. Anoop Menon Ambalappatte, Assistant Section

Officer

Embassy of India, Bharain

Mr. Ravi Chettri, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Baghdad

[F. No.T. 4330/01/2024(17)]

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

रेल मंत्रालय

(रेलवे बोडा)

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2024

का.आ. 939.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडा), रािभाषा जनयम 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के

जनयम 10 के उपजनयम (2) और (4) के अनुसरि में जनम्नजलजखत कायाालयों ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक

अजिकाररयों/कमाचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायासाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िै:-

2074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. मुख्य पररयोिना प्रबंिक, रेल जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड, जविाखापत्तनम यूजनट.

2. प्रमुख मुख्य जचदकत्सा जनिेिक, केन्रीय जचदकत्सालय, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, ियपुर.

[फा. सं. हिंिी-2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1721570)]

डॉ. बरुि कुमार, जनिेिक, रािभाषा

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(Railway Board)

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2024

S.O. 939.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the

Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where

80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., Visakhapatnam Unit.

2. Principle Chief Medical Director, Central Hospital, North Western Railway, Jaipur.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L-1/12/1/( 1721570)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director(O.L.)

नई दिल्ली, 8 माचा, 2024

का.आ. 940.—रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोडा), रािभाषा जनयम 1976 (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) के

चतुथा वाजिनी, रेलवे सुरक्षा जविेष बल, न्यूिलपाईगुड़ी, पजिम बंगाल।

उप मुख्य इंिीजनयर/जनमााि, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, ियपुर।

उप मुख्य इंिीजनयर/जनमााि, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, उियपुर।

उप मुख्य इंिीजनयर/जनमााि, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, बीकानेर।

उप मुख्य इंिीजनयर/जनमााि, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, िोिपुर।

उप मुख्य इंिीजनयर/जनमााि, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, मकराना।

उप मुख्य इंिीजनयर/जनमााि, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे, अिमेर।

मुख्य पररयोिना प्रबंिक, रेल जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड, पुिे यूजनट।

मुख्य पररयोिना प्रबंिक, रेल जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड, झांसी यूजनट।

10. मुख्य पररयोिना प्रबंिक, रेल जवकास जनगम जलजमटेड, वारािसी यूजनट।

[फा. सं. हिंिी-2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1721748)]

डॉ. बरुि कुमार, जनिेिक, रािभाषा

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2024

S.O. 940.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the

Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where

80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. 4^TH Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force, Newjalpaiguri, West Bengal.

2. Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, North West Railway, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, North West Railway, Udaipur.

4. Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, North West Railway, Bikaner.

5. Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, North West Railway, Jodhpur.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2075

6. Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, North West Railway, Makrana.

7. Deputy Chief Engineer/ Construction, North West Railway, Ajmer.

8. Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., Pune Unit.

9. Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., Jhansi Unit.

10. Chief Project Manager, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., Varanasi Unit.

[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L-1/12/1/( 1721748)]

Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director(O.L.)

कौिल जवकास और उद्यमिीलता मंत्रालय

(प्रजिक्षि मिाजनिेिालय)

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 941.—केंरीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग जनयम 1976 (यथा

संिोजित 1987) के जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरि में एतद्द्वारा प्रजिक्षि मिाजनिेिालय (कौिल

जवकास और उद्यमिीलता मंत्रालय) के अिीनस्ट्थ कायाालय राष्ट्रीय कौिल प्रजिक्षि संस्ट्थान (मजिला), वडोिरा को जिसके

80% से अजिक कमाचाररयों ने हिंिी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, अजिसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं. डीिीटी-ई-11012/1/2017-हिंिी]

गुलाब चंरा, सिा. जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

(Directorate General of Training)

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 941.—In Pursuance of sub- rule (2) and (4) rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use of Official Purposes

of the Union) Rule 1976 (As Amended 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies the National Skill Training

Institute (W), Vadodara is subordinate office of Directorate General of Training (Ministry of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship), more than 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

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

GULAB CHANDRA, Asst. Director

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 942.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/12/2016) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/51/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( LC/R/12/2016 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

2076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/04/2024.

[No. L-22012/51/2015– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/12/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The General Secretary,

Koyla Mazdoor Sabha(HMS),

Qtr.No. M/91, Vikar Nagar,

Distt. Korba-495454, Chhatisgarh.

Workman

Versus

The General Manager(Mining),

South Eastern Coalfields Limited,

Kusmunda Project, PO : Kusmund Colliery,

Distt. Korba, Chhatisgarh

Management

AWARD

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

As per letter dated 02/02/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

number L-22012/51/2015 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 02/02/2016. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the action of the management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Kusmunda Project in taking

action towards depromoting Shri Deepak Kumar Dubey s/o Mulchand from the post of EP welder -I

to EP welder with effect from the date of promotion in the decision-making process after holding DPC

is appropriate and justified ? If not, what relief Shri Deepek Kumar Dubey is entitled to and from

which date?”

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

served on them. The Workman first appeared in this case on September 28^th, 2022 through counsel Rashmi Pathak

who filed her Vakalatnama and sought time for filing his statement of claim. She also never appeared thereafter.

The management has filed its written statement of defence wherein it has denied the claim in the reference

and has put up a case that in fact the said promotion order was issued by mistake and when this mistake was

diagnosed, the order was recalled correcting the mistake. According to management, promotion is regulated as per the

Cadre Scheme applicable to each cadre. The departmental promotion committee had recommended the names of

seven persons for promotion. The name of the applicant Workman was in the last of the list. Subsequently it came out

that as per manpower budget for the year there was no manpower requirement to the post of EP welder Grade I hence,

the Committee issued corrigendum after re-examination of the report of the Departmental Promotion Committee and

in the light of said corrigendum, the promotion order was cancelled. Further, according to management, when

subsequent manpower budget was available, the applicant Workman was promoted wide order dated March 31^st ,

2013. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the reference be answered against the Workman.

The case proceeded ex parte against the Workman vide order dated December 8^th, 2023. The management

has filed photocopy documents. No affidavit of management witness has been filed.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2077

I have heard argument of learned counsel for management. Mr Neeraj Kewat and have gone through the

record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in this case.

The initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since he has not filed even in any statement of

claim, nor has he filed any document or affidavit in support of his case, he is a held to have failed in discharging his

burden to prove his claim. Accordingly, holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be

answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

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

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

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

rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 21/02/2024

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 943.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 12 /2021) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/32/2021-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 943.—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.12/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04/05/2024.

[No. L-22012/32/2021– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 12 OF 2021

PARTIES:

Kola Bhuiya

(dependent son of Late Nagia Kamin)

Vs.

Management of Nimcha Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

2078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

27.03.2024

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-22012/32/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 16.08.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Nimcha Colliery 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 ECL vide Ref. No.SAT/PER/EMPL/98/1905 dated

23/25-12-1998 in rejecting the claim of Kola Bhuiya dependent son of Late Nagin Kamin, Ex-Wagon Loader, who

expired on 08-01-1991 while in service for employment on compassionate ground under the provisions of NCWA, is

legal and justified? If not, what relief Kola Bhuiya dependent son of Late Nagin Kamin Ex-Wagon Loader is entitled

to and from which date?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/32/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 16.08.2021 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 12 of 2021 was registered on

16.08.2021 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. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative and Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL

filed their written statement on 21.11.2022. Fact of the case in brief, is that Nagia Kamin, Ex-Wagon Loader who

was employed at Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL),

expired on 08.01.1991 while she was in service of the company. Kola Bhuiya, son of Late Nagia Kamin claimed

employment as a dependent under the provision of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as

NCWA). The Management of ECL delayed the matter and asked him to submit some more document. The

employment proposal was processed by the Screening Committee at Colliery level and Kola Bhuiya appeared before

the Initial Medical Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as IME Board), where he was declared fit for

employment. The proposal was forwarded to the Headquarters of ECL for approval. By letter

No.SAT/PER/EMPL/98/1905 dated 23/25.12.1998 informed that the competent authority has expressed his inability

to consider the case as it was a belated claim for employment. Kola Bhuiya in his written statement has contended

that his claim was not a belated one as he had claimed employment just after the death of his mother but failed to

produce the documents. It is further stated that the dependent son has no source of income for his livelihood and is

facing starvation with other family members and he should be provided employment.

Management filed written statement wherein it is stated that the Industrial Dispute has been raised more than

twenty-eight years after the death of Nagia Kamin on 08.01.1991. It is submitted that as per office record Kola Bhuiya

submitted an application for his employment on 26.03.1997. According to the management, compassionate

appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services. It is urged that the whole object

of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis but the claimant

failed to submit his claim for employment within reasonable time or substantiate a case that the family was in a dire

need of livelihood in absence of the sole bread earner. The management contended that inordinate delay in claiming

employment is unjustified and relied upon a case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and Others [AIR 2000 SC 839], observed that the Government

should exercise the power of referring under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in reasonable and rational

manner and it should not accept the case referred it for adjudication after a lapse of seven years, as there was no

Industrial Dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. The management urged that the claim

should not be allowed and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.

To substantiate his case Kola Bhuiya examined himself as Workman witness – 1 and he filed an affidavit-in-

chief reiterating the case disclosed in his written statement. In course of his evidence-in-chief the witness produced

several documents which have been admitted in evidence as follows :

(i)

Photocopy of the Death Registration Certificate of Nagia Kamin has been marked as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Photocopy of the Service Record Excerpt of Nagia Kamin in three pages, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii) Photocopy of the Office Order dated 11/13.11.1997, whereby he was referred to the Screening

Committee, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Photocopy of the letter dated 27/29.11.1997 directing him to file some documents, as Exhibit W-4.

(v)

Photocopy of letter explaining cause of delay, as Exhibit W-5.

(vi)

Photocopy of the subsequent applications dated 02.09.2003 and 13.02.2010, as Exhibit W-6 and

W-7 respectively.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2079

In his examination-in-chief the witness admitted that he has no document to show that he had filed application before

the company seeking employment.

In his cross-examination the workman witness identified his letter submitted in the year 1997 as Exbibit M-1.

The evidence of WW-1 reveals that the claimant had four other brothers. After death of Kashi Bhuiya, his father, the

elder brother of the claimant namely Mohan Bhuiya was provided with employment under ECL as a dependent of his

father. The witness denied that he is not entitled to employment as dependent of his mother and also stated that his

other four brothers have died.

Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Deputy Manager (Personnel) at Nimcha Colliery has been examined as Management

witness – 1. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Kola Bhuiya submitted applications dated 26.03.1997 and

18.09.1997. The four other brothers had no objection against the claim for employment of Kola Bhuiya, as dependent.

It is evident from his affidavit-in-chief that Kola Bhuiya appeared before the Screening Committee as per the Office

Order dated 15.11.1997 and a report was prepared on 25.03.1998. On 27.04.1998 the employment proposal was

initiated by the Personnel Manager of Satgram Area. On 23/25.12.1998 the Agent Nimcha (R) Colliery was informed

that the claim for employment had failed due to delay. In his examination-in-chief the management witness has

produced the following documents :

(i)

Photocopy of the application of Kola Bhuiya addressed to the General Manager of Satgram Area

has been marked as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Photocopy of the Death Registration Certificate of Nagia Kamin, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Photocopy of the Service Record Excerpt of Nagia Kamin in three pages, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Photocopy of the application dated 18.09.1997, regarding no objection of other legal heirs, as

Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Photocopy of the application of Kola Bhuiya dated 29.12.1997, as Exhibit M-5.

(vi)

Photocopy of the letter dated 12/15.01.1998 requesting Kola Bhuiya to submit some documents and

to state reasons for delay, as Exhibit M-6.

(vii)

Photocopy of the application of Kola Bhuiya dated 02.02.1998 addressed to the General Manager,

Satgram Area, informing cause of delay, as Exhibit M-7.

(viii)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 11/13.11.1997, as Exhibit M-8.

(ix)

Photocopy of the report of the Screening Committee in two pages, as Exhibit M-9.

(x)

Photocopy of the Note Sheet dated 27.04.1998 regarding claim for employment of Kola Bhuiya, as

Exhibit M-10.

(xi)

Photocopy of the letter dated 23/25.12.1998 informing that the competent authority has expressed

his inability to consider the employment proposal, as Exhibit M-11.

In his evidence-in-chief the management witness deposed that the elder brother of Kola Bhuiya did not issue no

objection in his favour regarding employment. On 18.09.1997 an application was submitted by Kola Bhuiya

informing that the other legal heirs have no objection if employment was provided to him. (Exhibit M-4). The Deputy

Chief Personnel Manager (HQ) regretted the claim for employment due to delay of seven years.

In cross-examination the management witness deposed that he is unable to produce any document to show

that the management of the company informed the dependent of Late Nagia Kamin regarding his entitlement to death

benefits. The cross-examination of management witness reveals that Kola Bhuiya had been referred to IME for

employment. He denied that the management of the company acted illegally by not providing employment to the

dependent of Late Nagia Kamin.

The union representative vehemently argued that on the death of an employee, Clause 9.4.2 of NCWA

provided for employment to one dependent of the deceased employee. In the instant case Kola Bhuiya, the dependent

son of Late Nagia Kamin applied for his employment but the management delayed the matter on various pretexts and

finally communicate their inability to consider the prayer due to delay. It is argued that dependent son of the workman

has participated in the process and had appeared before the Screening Committee on 20.11.1997, which examined

Kola Bhuiya and finally referred the matter to the Chief Personnel Manager, Satgram Area for processing the case.

The union urged that the management failed to consider the prayer of the dependent in accordance with law and the

dependent son should be provided with employment at the earlier.

In reply the learned advocate for the management harped upon their case that the son of the deceased

employee submitted the application for employment after inordinate delay for which the management was unable to

provide any employment.

10.

I have considered the rival contention of parties in light of the evidence on record and argument advanced on

behalf of both parties.

11.

It is a settled principle of law that a public post is not a heritable property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur [(2007) 9 SCC 571] held that :

“….. public post is not heritable, therefore, the right to compassionate appointment is not a heritable property.”

2080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that appointment on compassionate ground is

an exception to the constitutional scheme of quality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India

12.

The object of providing employment to the dependent of the deceased employee is to prevent destitution or

penury in the family of the deceased employee. It is also well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a

matter of heritable right and depends upon the extant rules or schemes under which benefits or facilities are

envisaged. The NCWA is one such scheme adopted by the representatives of the management, union and workmen

casting duty upon themselves to provide employment to a dependent of the deceased employee under certain

circumstances. Though in course of framing NCWA, the policy makers did not prefer to use the expression

“compassionate appointment”, it lays down that one dependent family member is entitled to employment within

certain range of age, if such dependent expresses the choice. The expression “dependent” connotes that the person

concerned has no independent means or source of livelihood and seeks support from some other person. Therefore, it

is necessary to consider whether the person claiming employment as a dependent of the deceased employee has any

suitable source of livelihood to be considered as a dependent. In the instant case Nagia Kamin died in the year

08.01.1991. The evidence disclosed that for the first time on 26.03.1997 the management received claimant’s

application for employment (Exhibit M-1). The dependent petitioner failed to indicate that it had made any earlier

claim for employment. the passage of time of over six years suggests that the petitioner was in a position to wade over

the necessities of life. The evidence of WW-1 also reveals that another member of his family i.e. his elder brother,

Mohan Bhuiya was already employed under ECL as a dependent of his father, Late Kashi Bhuiya. Since the family

had means of sustenance, the delayed claim for employment of Kola Bhuiya has no merit. In my considered view the

management of the company committed no illegality by regretting the claim of employment by Kola Bhuiya as a

dependent of Late Nagia Kamin. The Industrial Dispute raised by the union therefore has no merit and the same is

dismissed on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute raised against rejection of claim for employment of Kola Bhuiya as a dependent

son of Late Nagia Kamin is dismissed on contest. An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 944.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 09 /2016) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/11/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 944.—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. 09/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22012/11/2016– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2081

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. 09 OF 2016

PARTIES:

Chhangur Pasi

Vs.

Management of Dhemomain Group of Mines of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

26.03.2024

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-22012/11/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 02.05.2016 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Dhemomain Group of Mines under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Narsamuda Project under Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL in

dismissing Shri Chhangur Pasi, U.G. Loader is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/11/2016-IR(CM-II) dated 02.05.2016 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 09 of 2016 was registered on

13.05.2016 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. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative on 13.07.2016 filed written statement on behalf of the dismissed

workman, Chhangur Pasi. On 30.01.2017 Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate appeared and filed written statement

for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). The case of the aggrieved

workman is that he was employed as an Underground Loader at Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area of ECL,

having UM No. 154250. Due to his illness from 01.09.1997 he was unable to attend his duty. After he recovered from

his ailment, he went to join his duty but the management did not permit him to join and issued a Charge Sheet bearing

No. NSP/C-6/1058 dated 20.10.1997. Chhangur Pasi submitted his reply to the Charge Sheet but the management

started a Domestic Enquiry. It is the case of the dismissed workman that his place of work was far away from his

place of residence and no quarters was allotted to him by the company. He could not inform the management about

his illness. The management issued a 2^nd Charge Sheet to him bearing No. NSP/C-6/98/253 dated 03.06.1998 alleging

that Chhangur Pasi absented from duty from August 1997 till the date of Charge Sheet without authorization. While at

one place it has been stated that he was absent from duty from August 1997, at another place it is stated that he was

absent from 01.09.1997. The workman participated in the enquiry and disclosed in course of enquiry that he could not

attend his duty due to his illness. He also submitted documents related to his medical treatment at the time of

reporting for duty. Further, case of the union is that the Enquiry Proceeding was concluded hastily in one sitting and

an extreme and harsh punishment of dismissal was passed against the workman by issuing an Order of Dismissal,

bearing No. NSP/C-6/Dismissal/99/750 dated 16/19.01.1999, without issuing any 2^nd Show Cause Notice. According

to the union the Disciplinary Authority is the General Manager of the Area but the Order of Dismissal was issued by

the Manager of the Colliery. As such the Order of Dismissal has no force and is illegal. The workman submitted a

Mercy Petition for his reinstatement in service according to the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement

2082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 22.05.2007, wherein it had been provided that if the dismissed employee was up to forty-five years of age and

absented for a period up to nine months then his request for reinstatement could be considered. The date of birth of

Chhangur Pasi is 23.06.1969 and at the time of submitting his Mercy Petition his age was less than forty-five years

and his period of absence was nine months from 01.09.1997 to 02.06.1998. The management did not consider his

appeal. Being aggrieved the workman filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta bearing WP No.

279 of 2011. By order dated 22.01.2014, learned single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta directed the

respondent no. 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation appearing as Annexure “P-5” to the petition at page 27

thereof in accordance with law and strictly in terms of the prevailing policy of the respondent coal company and a

reasoned order in such regard was to be communicated by the Respondent No. 4 to the petitioner within six weeks

from the date. The General Manager, Sodepur Area complied the direction of the Hon’ble High Court and considered

the representation of the petitioner. Chhangur Pasi had been dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized

absence for more than nine months. The union in its written statement has challenged the Enquiry Proceeding and its

findings and prayed for reinstatement of Chhangur Pasi and payment of full back wages along with consequential

benefits.

Management contested the case by filing written statement wherein it has been stated that Chhangur Pasi was

in the habit of remaining absent from duty without any authorization for which a second Charge Sheet was issued

against him, bearing No. NSP/C-6/98/253 dated 03.06.1998. The workman replied to the Charge Sheet stating that he

was suffering from illness and was under medical treatment at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol. A Departmental

Enquiry was initiated and after giving sufficient opportunity and following the principles of natural justice,

management dismissed the workman by order of dismissal dated 16/19.01.1999. After long lapse of time, Chhangur

Pasi filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta bearing WP No. 279 of 2011, wherein the

Hon’ble Justice Sanjib Banerjee by order dated 22.01.2014 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the

management to consider the petition of Chhangur Pasi in accordance with law, following prevailing policy of the

company. A reasoned order was passed on 03.06.2014 and management found no merit in the representation of the

workman. The President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress raised an Industrial Dispute after sixteen years. Management

urged that Chhangur Pasi is not a member of the said union and the union has no locus standi to raise dispute. The

workman has sufficient source of income to maintain his family and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Chhangur Pasi was examined as Workman Witness – 1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief, reiterating his case in

the written statement. The workman did not place any document for admission in evidence. In his cross-examination

the workman denied that he was not suffering from illness and admitted that he attended the enquiry proceeding

where he stated the reason of his absence from duty.

Management examined Ms. G Meena Kumari, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Narsamuda Colliery, ECL as

Management Witness – 1. She filed an affidavit-in-chief and produced several documents which have been admitted

in evidence as follows :

(i)

Photocopy of the Charge Sheet bearing No. NSP/C-6/98/253 dated 03.06.1998 has been marked as

Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Photocopy of the reply submitted by Chhangur Pasi disclosing the reason of his absence from duty, as

Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Photocopy of the letter issued by the Agent, Dhemomain Colliery appointing Mr. M. A. Ansari,

Accounts Officer as Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Photocopy of the Notice of enquiry, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Photocopy of the Enquiry Proceeding in three pages including statement of Chhangur Pasi and

Management Representative, as Exhibit M-5.

(vi)

Photocopy of the letter issued by the Chief General Manager, Sodepur

Area dated 11/12.01.1999 directing dismissal of Chhangur Pasi with immediate effect, as Exhibit M-6.

(vii)

Photocopy of the letter dated 14/15.01.1999 of the Agent, Dhemomain Colliery addressed to the

Manager Narsamuda Colliery informing that Chhangur Pasi has been dismissed, as Exhibit M-7.

(viii)

Photocopy of the Mercy Petition for reinstatement in service submitted by Chhangur Pasi, as Exhibit

M-8.

(ix)

Photocopy of the Server copy of the Hon’ble High Court’s order in WP No. 279 of 2011 has been

marked as ‘X’ for identification.

(x)

Photocopy of the Reasoned Order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the General Manager, Sodepur Area in

compliance with the Hon’ble High Court’s order, as Exhibit M-9.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2083

(xi)

Signature of Chhangur Pasi indicating service of copy of the Reasoned Order upon him, as

Exhibit M-10.

(xii)

Photocopy of the letter dated 16/19.01.1999 issued by the Manager, Narsamuda Project addressed to

Chhangur Pasi regarding his dismissal from service, as Exhibit W-1.

In her cross-examination the Management Witness admitted that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the

workman after completing the enquiry and before his dismissal.

The short question for consideration is whether the dismissal of Chhangur Pasi from service by order dated

11/12.01.1999 is just, proper and in accordance with law.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative advancing his argument submitted that Charge Sheet issued to the

workman does not disclose any specific date since when the workman remained absent from duty in the month of

August 1997. It is argued that the charge against the workman in the very inception is vague and no charge could have

been framed against the workman on the basis of Charge Sheet. The second contention of the union is that the enquiry

was held in a hasty manner, in a single sitting. It is pointed out the finding of the Enquiry Officer is cryptic in nature

without disclosing the reason, as to why the statement of the workman regarding his illness and remaining under

medical treatment at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol was not taken into consideration. It is vehemently argued on

behalf of the workman that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman which is mandatory under the law

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan

Khan [1991 AIR SC 471]. It is claimed that after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India a Circular

dated 12.05.1994 was issued by the Coal India Limited, wherein referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, the Director (P & IR), Coal India Limited laid down that the Enquiry Report should be supplied to the

charged employee and while communicating the final order it must be mentioned that his representation was taken

into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. It is inter-alia argued that the age of the workman was below forty-

five years on the date of filing the Mercy Petition and his period of absence was less than nine months. It is argued

that the order of dismissal is illegal and the workman is required to be reinstated in service with consequential

benefits.

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate argued that the workman admitted the charge of his unauthorized

absence as he did not give any prior information to the management. The workman participated in the Enquiry

Proceeding and was found guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority having considered the finding of the

Enquiry Officer issued his direction for dismissal of the workman in his letter dated 11/12.01.1999, which has been

produced as Exhibit M-6. The subsequent communication by the Agent to the Manager by letter dated 14/15.01.1999

(Exhibit M-7) and the communication of the Manger to Chhangur Pasi about his dismissal from service by letter dated

16/19.01.1999 (Exhibit W-1) were all in compliance with the direction of the Chief General Manager of Sodepur

Area, who was the Disciplinary Authority. Learned advocate referred to the Hon’ble High Court’s order passed in

WP No. 279 of 2011 and submitted that direction of the Hon’ble High Court was duly complied by the General

Manager of Sodepur Area, who passed a reasoned order on 03.06.2014 and on careful examination he found that the

period of unauthorized absence from duty from August 1997 to 02.06.1998 is more than nine months for which his

case did not satisfy the requirements of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 and the workman failed to

adduce any convincing evidence which compelled him to remain absent.

10.

I have considered the rival contentions in the written statements of the parties, evidence adduced by the

workman and management and the documents admitted in evidence in support of their cases. It is contended by the

union that no specific date has been mentioned since when the workman had remained absent from duty. The Charge

Sheet produced by the management as Exhibit M-1 reveals that the workman was absent from August 1997 without a

specific date since when the workman was absent. The Management Representative examined by the Enquiry Officer,

in his statement disclosed that Chhangur Pasi did not take any leave nor did he inform about his whereabouts for the

period from 01.09.1997 to 25.08.1998. The Management Representative in the enquiry proceeding did not

categorically state since when the charged employee was absent from duty. It appears to me that the Enquiry Officer

did not consider the statement of Chhangur Pasi regarding his claim of being seriously ill from 01.09.1997 to

25.08.1998 when he was undergoing medical treatment at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol. The Notice for

enquiry (Exhibit M-4) has referred the 2^nd Charge Sheet No. NSP/C-6/98/253 dated 03.06.1998. Therefore, the same

can be correlated with the Enquiry Proceeding leading to dismissal of Chhangur Pasi. It transpires from the materials

in record that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman before the Disciplinary Authority passed the

order of dismissal on 11/12.01.1999. It is true that after dismissal, a Mercy Petition was filed by the charged

employee and thereafter, he preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, highlighting the fact

that his mercy petition was not consider in the light of the Memorandum of Settlement No. 1/4(9)/2007/D-1 dated

22.05.2007. The Hon’ble High Court’s direction to Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition was complied. To my mind

this ex post facto compliance does not substitute the mandatory requirement of the Disciplinary Authority from

issuing a 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the charged employee and supplying him with the Enquiry Proceeding Report and

Findings of Enquiry Officer for submitting his explanation on such facts. It is apparent and admitted that the

procedure of the enquiry was not lawfully exhausted.

2084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11. In the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India laid down the law as follows:

“ When the Inquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of

the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the charges

levelled against him. A denial of the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority takes its decision on the

charges, is denial of opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of principles of natural

justice.”

In the present case Mr. M. A. Ansari, Accounts Officer, Narsamuda Colliery was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by

the Agent of Dhemomain Colliery. The Chief General Manager was the Disciplinary Authority who was required to

issue a 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the charged employee, providing him an opportunity to meet findings of the Enquiry

Officer in respect of the charge against him. The management has been directed by the Director (P & IR), Coal India

Limited by a Circular No. CIL C-5A(VI)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994, mandating that the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd. Ramzan Ali’s case would operate prospectively to the orders of

punishment passed after 20.11.1990. The Enquiry Report therefore should have been supplied to the charged

employee and while communicating the final order it must be mentioned that the representation of the employee was

taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.

12.

Bearing the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which has been made

applicable by the Circular dated 12.05.1994, I hold that the management of Narsamuda Colliery under Sodepur Area

of ECL has failed to comply the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned case and

Circular of Coal India Limited dated 12.05.1994, resulting in breach of natural justice. Therefore, the order of

dismissal of the workman by the Chief General Manager dated 11/12.01.1999 and order dated 03.06.2014 passed by

Respondent No. 4 dismissing Chhangur Pasi from his service is found bad in law, the same are not tenable and are set

aside. Chhangur Pasi’s date of birth is 23.06.1969. Therefore, he has not reached his age of superannuation. The

management of the company is directed to reinstate the workman within two (2) months from the date of

communication of this order. The workman shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. In view of the facts and

circumstances of this case and bearing in mind the fact that no service has been rendered by the workman during the

pendency of proceeding and therefore he is not entitled to any back wages.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of the workman. The order bearing No. Pd/C-

6/99/36/3419 dated 11/12.01.1999 issued by the Chief General Manager, Sodepur Area of ECL dismissing Chhangur

Pasi from his service with immediate effect is treated as non est and is set aside. The subsequent order dated

03.06.2014 passed by the General Manager, Sodepur Area of ECL in respect of refusal to reinstate Chhangur Pasi is

also not found tenable due to non fulfilment of mandatory procedure and the same is without force. The management

of the company is directed to reinstate the workman within two (2) months from the date of communication of this

order. The workman shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The workman however, shall not be entitled to any

back wages as he has not rendered any service to the company. The period of his absence from duty be treated as dies

non. An award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry

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

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 945.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 33 /2019) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/75/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 945.—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. 33/2019) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22012/75/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2085

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. 33 OF 2019

PARTIES:

Niren Chandra Das

Vs.

Management of Central Kajora Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.02.2024

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-22012/75/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.09.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Central Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Central Kajora Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. by not

regularizing Sri Niren Chandra Das, Surface Trammer as Fan Operator is justified or not. If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/75/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.09.2019 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 33 of 2019 was registered on

18.09.2019 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.

Niren Chandra Das, aggrieved workman has appeared in person and filed an affidavit stating that he is not

interested in proceeding further with this case and the same may be disposed of in the form of No Dispute. Mr. Milan

Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the workman is present. Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate

appeared for the Management of Central Kajora Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited by filing fresh Vokalatnama.

The case is fixed up today for filing additional written statement and evidence.

Both, the workman and Management filed their written statements on 28.11.2022. Workman witness was

examined on 08.05.2023 and the management’s witness was examined in part on 06.09.2023. At this stage the

aggrieved workman filed an affidavit informing that he is not interested to proceed further with this case. Considered

the submissions made by the advocates from both sides as well as by the workman. In view of such submission, I find

no reason to proceed further. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. Let a No Dispute

Award be drawn up.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

2086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 946.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभा संख्या 34 /2005) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/109/2004-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. I.D. No. 34/2005) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22012/109/2004– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 34 OF 2005

PARTIES:

Arkhit Polai

Vs.

Management of Shankarpur Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Bipul Banerjee, Adv.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

22.02.2024

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-22012/109/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 11.05.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Shankarpur Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sri Arkit Polai, U.G.Trammer, U.M. No. 616717 from service vide order

No. BA/PD/Dis/1374 dated 7/8.7.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/109/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 11.05.2005 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 34 of 2005 was registered on

31.05.2005. 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2087

Mr. S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on behalf of the

aggrieved workman on 18.07.2005. The management filed written statement on 02.02.2006. In brief, the fact of the

case as disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Arkhit Polai was a permanent employee and posted

as trammer at Shankarpur Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL).

For his unauthorized absence from 04.06.2002 to 23.08.2002 a Charge Sheet bearing no. SKP/PNL/4/2002/83 dated

24.08.2002 was served upon him. The workman replied to the Charge Sheet and attended the Enquiry Proceeding

held against him. A 2^nd Charge Sheet was issued against the workman on 19.02.2003 but the same was not served

upon him. The employer company without serving any Notice of enquiry held ex-parte Enquiry Proceeding against

Arkhit Polai and dismissed him from service, violating the principles of natural justice. It is further urged that the

punishment of dismissal is extreme and disproportionate to the nature of charge. It is prayed that the order of

dismissal of Arkhit Polai from his service is illegal and the family of the ex-employee is facing starvation. It is prayed

on behalf of the workman that the dismiss workman may be reinstated in service along with all back wages for the

period of his dismissal along with consequential benefits.

The Management of ECL contested the case by filing written statement -cum- rejoinder, wherein it is stated

that the workman was chargesheeted by the Management on 19.02.2003 under Clause 26.29 for his unauthorized

absence from duty since 04.06.2002 and also for his habitual absence under Clause 26.23 of the Certified Standing

Order applicable to the company. The Charge Sheet was sent to the workman at his home address but as he failed to

submit any reply against the Charge Sheet the management held a Domestic Enquiry in respect of the charge. An

Enquiry Officer was appointed by the appointing authority and Notice of enquiry was issued to the workman at his

home address but he failed to attend ultimately the Enquiry Proceeding held ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer found the

charged employee guilty of the charge of misconduct and submitted his Enquiry Report before the appointing

authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the workman at his home address by

letter dated 11/16.06.2003 but he failed to submit any reply and the Disciplinary Authority was passed an order

dismissing the workman from service vide letter dated 07/08.07.2003. It is urged that after consideration of Charge

Sheet, Notice of enquiry, Enquiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, and all other connected papers the management

asserted that the workman never submitted any reply to the Charge Sheet nor did he attend the Enquiry Proceeding as

claimed by him. It is further denied that the workman was not served with Charge Sheet or Notice of enquiry or that

the management illegally held enquiry and dismissed the workman without giving any opportunity to defend himself

during the Enquiry Proceeding. The management denied that the punishment imposed against the workman is

disproportionate to the charge. It has been claimed that the action of the management in dismissing the workman is

justified and the Enquiry Proceeding was held in fair manner.

Arkhit Polai filed affidavit-in-chief where he reiterated his statement made in his written statement. The

workman witness was cross-examined on 06.01.2016. In his affidavit-in-chief, in paragraph – 3 the workman

admitted that he could not attend his duty from 04.06.2002 to 23.08.2002 on account of unavoidable domestic

problem. In his cross-examination the witness disclosed that he is aware about the contents of the affidavit-in-chief

but went ahead to depose that he could not attend his duty due to his father’s illness. The witness started that he

replied to the Charge Sheet and also attended the enquiry but no such document has been produced. The witness

admitted that he did not have any proof in support of his statement. He replied in cross-examination that he was given

opportunity by the management in the Enquiry Proceeding. On traversing the evidence of workman witness it appears

that he has admitted his long absence from duty but failed to justify his action and no document could be produced by

him that he had replied to the Charge Sheet or had cited any reason for his absence from duty during the period in

question.

Mr. Mahesh Chand Meena, Senior Officer (Personnel) at Shankarpur Colliery of ECL was examined as

Management Witness -1. He stated that the workman was a habitual absentee and was absent from 04.06.2002

without any authorization. A charge under Clause 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Order applicable to the

company was framed against the workman and Charge Sheet was sent to the ex-workman by registered post and the

same was displayed on the Notice Board of the colliery. In his evidence-in-chief the management witness stated that

workman remained absent from duty from 04.06.2002 till issuance of Charge Sheet on 19.02.2003, a photocopy of the

Charge Sheet was produced as Exhibit M-1. Notice of enquiry was sent to the workman at his native place, District –

Ganjam (Odisha) but the same returned unserved. Witness further deposed that subsequently Notice of enquiry was

issued to the workman on 26.03.2003, which was sent to the workman under registered post. Photocopy of the three

Notices of enquiry have been produced as Exhibit M-2, M-3, and M-4. The testimony of Management Witness -1

reveals that Mr. L. N. Dutta, Senior Officer (Personnel) of Shankarpur Colliery was appointed as the Enquiry Officer

and photocopy the letter issued by the Agent to the Enquiry Officer has been produced as Exhibit M-5. Photocopy of

Enquiry Proceeding in eight pages have been collectively marked as Exhibit M-6. The witness deposed that he

workman did not participate in the Enquiry Proceeding. A photocopy of the 2^nd Show Cause Notice issued in the

name of Arkhit Polai bearing his home address has been produced as Exhibit M-7. A photocopy of the letter of

termination of service dated 07/08.07.2003 issued by the General Manager of Bankola Area has been produced as

Exhibit M-8.

2088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On 10.04.2023 none appeared for the workman to cross-examine the witness and no step was taken on his

behalf. The witness was discharged without examination and the case was fixed up for hearing of argument on

04.07.2023 and 05.09.2023. No step was taken on behalf of the union for cross-examination of the management

witness.

Mr. Bipul Banerjee, learned advocate for the workman argued that the Domestic Enquiry has been conducted

in violation of natural justice without providing any opportunity to the workman to defend his case. It is submitted

that neither copy of Charge Sheet nor copy of Notice of enquiry was issued to the workman and the punishment

passed is disproportionate to the charge imposed by way of dismissing him from service. learned advocate argued that

the order of dismissal is required to be set aside and an order may be passed for payment of back wages to the

workman as he has attained the age of superannuation from service on 30.06.2015.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of ECL argued that the dismissal of the workman by

order dated 07/08.07.2003 is with reference to the Charge Sheet dated 19.02.2003 which was addressed to the

workman at his native place at District-Ganjam (Odisha) under registered post with A/D. The charge laid therein was

of habitual absence under Clause 26.23 and also for his unauthorized absence from duty from 04.06.2002 beyond ten

days under Clause 26.29 of the Certified Standing Order. Learned advocate drew my attention to the photocopy of the

envelope addressed to Arkhit Polai at his native place: Vill and PO - Athagorapalli, Dist- Ganjam (Odisha). The

registration number and date appearing on the photocopy of envelope is 4366 and 26.02.2003. It appears from the

face of the document that the addressee was found absent.

Learned advocate submitted that the envelope bears the number of Charge Sheet as well as its date of

issuance. Therefore, the management provided opportunity to the workman to know the charge levelled against him

and reply the same. The workman was not found present at his workplace as well as at his native place and since no

reply was submitted Enquiry Proceeding was initiated by issuance of Notice of enquiry. Learned advocate referred to

the Notice of enquiry (Ext. M-2) bearing No. SKP/PNL/4/03/17 dated 13.03.2003 and the photocopy of the

envelope in which the Notice was sent at his native place at Ganjam (Odisha), having registration no. 309 date

20.03.2003. learned advocate submitted that endorsement made on the envelope showed that the workman was

always absent and it was returned to the Manager of Shankarpur. It is submitted that a fair Enquiry Proceeding was

held, ex-parte against the workman and he was found guilty of charge. Photocopy of the Enquiry Report has been

produced as Exhibit M-6 and 2^nd Show Cause Notice as Exhibit M-7. Learned advocate submitted that the workman

did not respond to the 2^nd Show Cause Notice and the General Manager issued the letter of Termination of service

dated 07/08.07.2003 (Exhibit M-8) whereby the concerned workman has been terminated from service. Learned

advocate for the management argued that the Domestic Enquiry Proceeding was held observing all formalities and

after serving several Notice under registered post and displaying the same at the office of the Management. It is

argued that the order of termination is appropriate and consistent to the charge and the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

10.

I have considered the Industrial Dispute raised by the union regarding unlawful dismissal of Arkhit Polai. I

have also considered the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and arguments advanced in support of the

respective pleadings. The present proceeding arose on dismissal of the workman consequent to a Departmental

Enquiry held over two charges levelled in Charge Sheet dated 19.02.2003 (Exhibit M-1). On a perusal of the same it

is found that on earlier occasion the workman was chargesheeted for his absence from 04.06.2002 and Charge Sheet

no. SKP/PNL/4/2002/83 dated 24.08.2002 had been issued and an enquiry was initiated in which the workman had

participated and found guilty of the charge. It is further disclosed that the competent authority imposed a punishment

of stoppage of 1 SPRA, even then he did not join his duty till issuance of Charge Sheet, as a result the Charge Sheet

dated 19.02.2003 was issued for long unauthorized and habitual absence from duty. It is gathered from the record that

the Notice of enquiry was sent to the workman at his permanent address at Vill and PO - Athagorapalli, Dist- Ganjam

(Odisha). Photocopy of postal envelope which is lying with the record, bears testimony of the fact that the workman

was found absent. A Notice of enquiry was issued to him under registered post bearing registration no. 309 dated

20.03.2003 but the workman was again found absent and an ex-parte Enquiry Proceeding was held. Mr. L. N. Dutta,

Senior Officer (Personnel) of Shankarpur Colliery was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. A photocopy of the letter of

appointment has been placed as Exhibit M-5. The Enquiry Officer on considering available materials and the evidence

of management representative found the workman guilty of the charge of habitual and unauthorized absence. Copy of

Enquiry Proceeding has been produced as Exhibit M-6. A 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman under

registered post at his permanent address. Photocopy of the 2^nd Show Cause Notice seeking reply of the workman

against the Enquiry Proceeding has been produced as Exhibit M-7. On 08.07.2003 a letter of dismissal was issued by

the appointing authority against the workman on the aforesaid charge. Despite a plea taken by the workman that the

Enquiry Proceeding was unfair and in violation of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered view that fair,

reasonable and ample opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case but he has fled from his place of work

and home at his native place and never participated in the Enquiry Proceeding. The work of the management has

suffered due to such unpredictable misconduct of the employee. The company has been affected due to long

authorized absence. The workman had an opportunity to rectify himself and attend the work but his long

unauthorized absence cannot justify his claim for setting aside the decision of the management. The management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2089

cannot be expected to run from pillar to post to search out their absenting employees. Genuine effort had been made

by the management to inform the charged employee about the charge framed against him as well as the date on which

the Enquiry Proceeding would commence. Finding the addressee absent at his registered address is presumed to

be good service on him. The concerned workman was already superannuated from service on 30.06.2015 and there is

nothing on record to mitigate his misconduct.

11.

In my considered view the findings of the Enquiry Officer appears to be fair and in accordance with the

provision of the rule applicable to the workman. The letter of dismissal was issued after the issuance of 2^nd Show

Cause Notice. To my mind the punishment of dismissal of the workman from his service commensurates with the

charge. In the light of my above discussion, I am of the view that the order of dismissal of Arkhit Polai from service

does not suffer from any illegality and it calls for no interference.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against the workman. An award be drawn up in light of my

above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New

Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 947.—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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k 5 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-20013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 5/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

S.C.C.Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, AT

HYDERABAD.

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of April, 2024

M.P. No. 5/2014

Between:

Sri Varahagiri Sriranganayakulu,

S/o Gurunada Rao,

10-1, Kachivani Singaram Village,

Uppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R. Dist. – 085.

…………. Petitioner

2090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Chairman and Managing Director,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Maher Mangil,

Singareni Bhavan, Khairatabad,

Hyderabad – 500 004.

…………. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Party in person

For the Respondent

Sri V.S.V.S.R.K.S. Prasad, Advocate

ORDER

The present miscellaneous petition under Sec.33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed by

the Petitioner Sri Varahagiri Sriranganayakulu, with the claim that he was an employee of the Respondent Company

and got voluntarily retired from the Company under Golden Handshake scheme under circular dated 9.2.2007 and

he is entitled to receive from the Company, the benefits mentioned in the statement herein annexed.

The applicant in the Miscellaneous Petition averred that, he got retired from the services of the Respondent

Company under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) w.e.f. 1.4.2007. But, as promised vide Clause

No.1.7.4(a)(II) of the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme Respondent Company did not pay the amounts due to him.

Management has calculated wrongly and so did not release the amounts for the period of June, 2009. When the

Petitioner in his oral and written submissions informed to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company

that he was paid less in respect of the period mentioned in his application. Respondent was informed that clause

1.7.4(a)(II) had created ambiguity as a result of which he was paid less amount. But the payment made to Petitioner

is not in conformity with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Further, applicant averred that he does not know how

the period has been calculated and taken into consideration for payment of ex-gratia. Whereas the date of birth of the

Petitioner has been taken as basis for the purpose of calculation of voluntary retirement ex-gratia. Since it was not

mentioned in the circular dated 9.2.2007 as to the necessity of Date of birth and promised to pay exgratia upto his

normal date of retirement as per the main clause 1.7.4(a)(II). Therefore, Petitioner has prayed that he is entitled to

receive Voluntary Retirement Scheme, ex-gratia as per the statement determining the dues of the Applicant as given

at the foot of the petition which are detailed as below:

Total amount to be paid:

Rs.

ps.

V.R.S. Ex-gratia payable for June, 2009

20,684 =56

Difference of 103 days balance Lwp

11,110=90

Difference of 11 musters in March 2007

1,243=99

Difference of V.R.exgratia payable @ March, 2007 10,906=11

-------------

Total:

43,945=56

-------------

Respondent in his counter against the petition has contended that all allegations in the claim petition are

hereby denied except that those which are admitted specifically herein. Further, it is contended that the present

petition has been filed by the Petitioner who retired voluntarily under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden

Handshake) with effect from 01.04.2007 seeking payment of certain amounts alleged to be paid to him for the month

of June 2009. Petitioner was retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) introduced by the

Respondent with effect from 01.04.2007 and the Petitioner has chosen to file the present petition on 31.01.2014 i.e.,

after a lapse of about 6 years. Hence the petition is barred by delay and latches on which ground alone it is liable to be

dismissed. Further, it is contended that it is true that the Petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement from services of

the Respondent Company with effect from 01.04.2007 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake).

Petitioner was appointed in the Company on 18.08.1975 and his date of birth is 09.06.1949 as per records. Petitioner

had submitted application dated 28.02.2007 for acceptance of voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2091

Scheme (Golden Hand Shake) which was introduced in the Respondent Company and circulated vide letter

No.CRP/PER/IR/V/621/205, dated 9.2.2007. Consequent upon acceptance of the request of the Petitioner for

voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake), his name was removed from the rolls

of Respondent Company with effect from 01.04.2007 vide letter No.BPA/EXP/A-3/3/2546, dated 31.03.2007.

Further, it is submitted that circular bearing No. CRP/PER/IRV/621/205, dated 09.02.2007 was issued to by the

Company to the effect of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) by the Director (PA&W) and the same

was displayed on notice boards at all the Coal Producing Units and Departments of Bellampalli Area of the

Respondent Company. The circular contained various salient features of the scheme for accepting retirement under

Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake). Important salient features of the circular is hereby extracted

below:-

Clause 1.3 Eligibility : An employee who has completed 10 years of service or completed 40 years of age (as on

01.03.2007) may seek voluntary retirement, by written application.

Clause 1.7.4.(a) : An employee whose request for voluntary retirement is accepted would also be entitled to an ex-

gratia payment on the following guidelines;

Clause 1.74.a.(i) : Exgratia payment equivalent to one and half month's wages (Basic, VDA & SDA) for each

completed year of service

Clause 1.7.4.a(ii) : Monthly wages at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance number of months of service

left before normal date of retirement, whichever is less.

Clause 1.7.4.(b) : Example : An employee who has put in 24 years of service and has got two years two months of

service left for normal retirement will get ex-gratia payment of 26 months wages and not 36 months wages.

Clause 2: The scheme shall come into force w.e.f. 09.02.2007 and it will be in operation upto 28.02.2007.

Clause 5: GENERAL

5.1

The sanctioned post of the retiring employee under the Scheme should be struck off /abolished.

5.2

For computation of service for the purpose of calculating the ex-gratia amount, 6 months and above will be

treated as a year and service less than 6 months will be ignored.

5.3

While computing the balance number of months of service left before normal date of retirement for the

purpose of calculating the ex-gratia amount, 15 days and above will be treated as a month and service less

than 15 days is to be ignored.

5.4

The wages of employees applying for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Hand Shake) during the period

from 09.02.2007 to 28.02.2007 may be taken on the basis of February, 2007 wages for the purpose of

computation of ex-gratia irrespective of the date from which voluntary retirement is accepted.

Further, Respondent contended that Petitioner had applied for retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme

(Golden Handshake) in accordance with the Circular No.CRP/PER/IR/V/621/205, dtd.09.02.2007 vide his application

dated 28.02.2007. His retirement from Respondent Company services was accepted only on submission of

application in accordance with Circular No. CRP/PER/IR/V/621/205, dated 09.02.2007. The Petitioner was working

as Deputy Superintendent and fully aware of the contents of the circular and after understanding the provisions of the

circular, the Petitioner had submitted application for his retirement under Voluntary Retirement scheme (Golden

Handshake). There had been sufficient time of one month from the date of submission of his application to the date of

acceptance of his voluntary retirement. The Petitioner was part and parcel of the ministerial staff (clerical staff) and

he had been working in the office where the applications from the workmen have been received under Voluntary

Retirement Schemes. Though the Petitioner was fully aware of the contents of the circular and had plenty of time on

hand, he did not object the same nor withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement owing to reasons only best

known to him. A few representations were made on some occasions verbally and in writing and the same were

clarified appropriately from time to time and he was welcomed to the office for any further clarifications. Instead,

the Petitioner had been raising queries over the contents of the circular, which are devoid in nature and hence denied.

However, it is denied that the Petitioner's request for retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden

Handshake) was accepted as promised vide Clause No.1.7.4(a)II only. The Petitioner conveniently did not quote other

relevant parameters of the circular, practice and procedures that has been followed in General Administration for

smooth functioning of organization as well as to maintain Industrial Relations. It is contended that payment of ex-

gratia was appropriately calculated in respect of Petitioner by strictly following the conditions stipulated in the

Circular, other ethical practices and existing procedures of the organization. The calculation part of the ex-gratia of

the Petitioner has been given in counter being extracted as under: -

2092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Date of birth of the Petitioner

9.6.1949

The date of appointment of the Petitioner

18.8.1975

Date of retirement under VRS(GHS)

1.4.2007

Last date of working in the company

31.3.2007

Normal date of retirement had he been

Continued his services in the organization

Total service rendered in the company

: 31 years 07 months & 14 days

Left over service after acceptance of his retirement under

VRS(GHS):

i) from 01.04.2007 to 3 1L.03.2009

= 24 months(i.e, 2 years)

ii) from 01.04.2009 to 31.05.2009 = 02 months

iii) from 01.06.2009 to 08.06.2009 = 08 days

iv)Total reckonable left over service

= 26 months only for calculation of ex-gratia

as per Clause 5.3 of the Circular.

> Basic pay in February,2007

Rs. 12,524/-

> Basic wages comprising Basic

Rs. 16,443-39

Pay+SDA+VDA)

(Basic pay is Rs.12,524/- + SDA @ 1.795 % on basic pay is Rs.224.81 + VDA @ of Rs.29.5% on basic pay Rs.3694-

58 = Rs.16,443-39)

Ex.Gratia payable to the Petitioner: Rs.16,443-39/-x26 months = Rs.4,27,528-14ps.

It is submitted that the allegation of the Petitioner that the ex-gratia amount for the month of June 2009 is not made is

not tenable as per clause 5.3 of the circular. Aas per clause No.5.3 (given under Main Clause 5 - General) elaborate

clarification has been given in the Voluntary Retirement (Golden Handshake) circular with regard to reckoning

period related to left over service and the same is re-produced hereunder:

"5.3: While computing the balance number of months of service left before normal date of retirement for the purpose

of calculating the ex gratia amount, 15 days and above will be treated as a month and service less than 15 days is to

be ignored.”

Thus, under the Condition 5.3, it is made clear that in case the period is less than 15 days the same is to be ignored.

For example, if any employee who opts for Voluntary Retirement and whose date of birth is in between 1" to 14" the

total number of days would be less than l15 days and the same would be ignored for making it a whole month. It is

clear that the normal date of retirement would depend upon actual date of birth in the cases of Voluntary Retirement

Scheme (Golden Handshake). If any employee's date of birth is between the dates from 1" to 14" it has to be ignored

from making it to a whole month for calculation of ex-gratia amount. As such, the reckoning period for calculation of

ex-gratia amount in respect of the Petitioner is only 26 months, but not 27 months as claimed by the Petitioner as the

same is arrived basing on his date of birth, which is 09.06.1949 (the days counted in June,2009 are below 15 days i.e.,

only 8 days hence to be ignored). Further, it is submitted that as per the Standing Orders the employees age of

superannuation/retirement shall be 60 years. This clause is applicable in respect of employees who serve in the

company till they attain the age 60 years. As a matter of fact, the employees shall have to retire from company

services on the same date of the same month in the year when they attain the age of 60 years. Whereas, in respect of

superannuation cases whose date of birth falls in between 2 day of the month to ending date of the month, such

employee will retire after duty hours of ending date in the same month of the same year of retirement. The

Respondent Company has adopted and implementing the above practice through out the company for administrative

reasons and to maintain Industrial Relations. This procedure is in vogue in respect of employees retiring in normal

course (i.e., serving the organization till they attain 60 years of age), but not in the other cases such as Voluntary

retirement, resignation etc. Further, Respondent contended that no such guidelines are hitherto issued in this regard

in respect of Voluntary Retirement Schemes on earlier occasions also. It is submitted that in the present matter date

of birth of the Petitioner is 09.06.1949 and he will attain the age of 60 years by 08.06.2009. As such, his date of

retirement would be 09.06.2009. The Petitioner's claim for computing ex-gratia for June, 2009 cannot be considered

as the Petitioner had retired prior to his normal date of retirement (i.e, before completion of 60 years of age) by opting

voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake). It is submitted that it is true that the

Petitioner had made representations verbally and in writing also under various stages including under the provisions

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2093

of RTI Act with regard to payment of ex-gratia. Immediately on receiving the representations the Petitioner was

clarified over the issues raised by him from time to time. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner was

paid Rs.8,408-29 on 01-10-2013 (i.e., after his retirement) towards less payments of CMPF, FPS, Sick leave payment

for 3 days and Quarter Bonus for 3 days leave, which clearly denotes that the Respondent Company is not having any

negative attitude and had never with held any amounts payable to its retired employees. It is submitted that the

Petitioner had worked as ministerial staff (clerical cadre) in the Respondent Company. He had full awareness

regarding the implementation of circulars. The Respondent Company is not having any ambiguity in making

payment of Ex-gratia to the retired employees under the Voluntary Retirement Schemes. At no time either verbally or

in writing the wording of "ambiguity" was used by the respondent in giving reply to the Petitioner as appropriate

amount was paid to him towards ex-gratia on accepting his retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is

submitted that without considering the date of birth it is very difficult to arrive at the age of an employees for

accepting the eligibility for VRS (GHS). Further, the date of birth is an essence in arriving the normal date of

retirement of any employee. As per Standing Order Sl.No.33, any employee will retire on attaining age of 60 years.

When employee's date of birth falls in middle of the calendar month, they will be continued till the end of the month

for administrative reasons. When the date of superannuation depends on their date of birth it is untenable to allege that

the date of birth of the Petitioner has no relevance in voluntary retirement scheme. The Petitioner has stated the

example of clause 1.7.4.(a)(II), but forgotten the clause 1.7.4.(b) which is lying just below the clause 1.7.4.(a)(II) and

so also clause 5.3 of Circular which denotes that if at all the days in a month are less than 15 days the same has to be

ignored. Hence the allegation that Date of birth for calculations of ex-gratia doesn't required is not tenable, as the

VRS optees are retiring from their services on submission of applications for VRS after accepting the conditions laid

down in the circulars before their normal date of retirement in response to the acceptance of conditions and

procedures and practices enumerated in the circulars issued from time to time on the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

Accordingly, the normal date of retirement reckonable in respect of the Petitioner is 08.06.2007 based on his date of

birth, ie, 09.06.1949 as per the conditions laid down in Sl.No.33 of approved Standing Orders as well as under

Clause 5.3 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) circular. Respondent contended that dues as

claimed by the Petitioner are not payable under the scheme due to following reasons:-

a) That the guidelines laid down under SL.No.5.3 of the Circular No,CRP/PER/IR/VI621/205, dtd.09.02.2007 shall

clarify for these allegations. Number of days between 1 June 2009 to 8^th June 2009 is only 08 days and as it is less

than 15 days, as the said period, is to be ignored and hence the part period in June 2009 is not taken into consideration

for calculation of ex-gratia.

b) That the difference of V.R.S ex.gratia @ of March, 2007 to the tune of Rs.10,906-11 is also not admissible as it has

been clarified under Clause 5.8 of the circular that employees applying for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden

Hand Shake) during the period from 09.02.2007 to 28.02.2007 on the basis of the wages of February, 2007 shall be

taken for the purpose of computation of ex-gratia.

c) That the recovery effected under recovery code No.2243 to the tune of Rs.125.24 pertains to electrical charges. The

employees who are living in the quarters provided by the Respondent Company are liable for recovery of electrical

charges from their wages to the tune of 1% of their basic pay. The Petitioner who Rs.20,684-00 is not admissible as

the period is less than 15 days purpose of computation of ex-gratia. was allotted Qtr.No.C2-6 at GM's office colony at

Bellampalli Township and the same was vacated by him on 04-09-2007. The company's accommodation provided to

the Petitioner was retained under his possession for over 5 months after his retirement. Since the pay sheet was run

in April, 2007 for payment of back wages to the Petitioner, the electrical charges were also appropriately recovered.

Actually this recovery was ignored for the months of May, June, July and August, 2007, which may please be noted.

Hence the said amount cannot be refunded.

d) That the recovery of Rs.10/- on recovery code 2413 pertains to temple maintenance fund offered by every

employee. This type of recoveries is made on obtaining undertaking from the employees based on their religions. The

refund of this amount is left to his willingness as the same was recovered from him as the paysheet was run in April,

2007 for payment of back wages.

e) That the recovery of FBIS (Family Benefit Cum Insurance Scheme) to the tune of Rs. 10/- was made in April,

2007 was refunded to him along with the refund claim of FBIS.

f) That the difference amount towards 103 days balance LWP appropriately paid to the Petitioner in the National Coal

Wage Board-VIII arrears paid to him along with all other employees of Respondent Company Limited in the month

of October, 2010.

The calculation details and other details give by the Respondent is extracted as under:-

As per NCWA-VIIl scales (old

pay scales)

As per NCWA-VIIl scales

(New pay scales

Difference

Amount already paid

a) Basic Rs.12$24/

b) Per day Rs.404/

a) Basic Rs.19065/

b) Per day Rs.635-50

3127-43

2094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

c) Basic for 103 days

Rs.41612/

d) SDA @1.795% Rs.746-94

e) DA @ Rs.32.3%

Rs. 13440.67

f) CMPF contribution amount

included in the calculation

Rs.12090/

g) Gross payable Rs.67,889-61

c) Basic for 103 days Rs.65456-50/

d) SDA @ 1.7959% Rs.1174-94

e) DA @ Rs.6.7 Rs.4385-59

f) Gross payable Rs.71017-03

Note :1) It may please be noted that though there is hike in basic pay the rate of D.A. has come down from 32.3% to

6.7% hence there is no much difference of amount payable to him. The difference towards this aspect was paid in

NCWA VIII arrears

2) The provident fund contribution of Rs.6045/- was refunded to the Petitioner.

3) The difference amount pertaining to l03 LWP wages consequent upon revision of payscales on implementation of

NCWA.VIII was paid in arrears.

The payslip supposed to be issued to employees as a practice in the Respondent Company was also issued for his

information. He had discharged his duties in the Respondent Company in the clerical cadre and he is well aware of

the facts and procedures adopted in the Respondent Company. Hence, the payment towards difference of 103 balance

leave wages is already paid and no amount on this count is due to the Petitioner.

g) Further, Respondent has contended that the actual 11 days advance musters recoverable from the Petitioner is

worked to be Rs.8220.44 as per NCWA-VII pay scales. Whereas an amount of Rs.7,773-00 only was recovered from

him. Still an amount of Rs.447.44ps is yet to be recovered from the Petitioner. Hence he is not entitled for refund of

this amount.

h) The detailed calculations part are as follows:

a) Amount recoverable towards 11 days advance musters as per NCWA.VII (Old wages)area as follows:

(Basic Rs.4444-00+SDA Rs. 79.77+DA Rs.1435-41+ CMPF Rs.715-00-Rs.6674-18)

b) Actual amount to be recovered for 11 days advance musters as per revised NCWA.VII (New wages) are as follows:

(Basic Rs.6765-00+SDA Rs. 121-43+DA Rs.453-25+CMPF Rs.880-76-Rs.8220-44)

Therefore, Respondent in view of the above has prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of merits.

Heard arguments of the Learned Counsels for both the parties. Perused the record.

Indisputable facts in the matter at hand are that the Petitioner was employee of the Respondent Company

and the Respondent Company M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., vide circular dated 9.2.2007 introduced

Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) in the Respondent Company and Petitioner applied for Voluntary

Retirement Scheme under the said scheme and his application for V.R.S. under Scheme was accepted vide letter

dated 15/20.3.2007, w.e.f 1.4.2007. Petitioner claims that he got retired from the service of the Respondent Company

in Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 1.4.2007, as promised vide clause No.1.7.4(a)(II), but the Company did not

pay the amount to him as per the scheme. Petitioner submits that the criteria of date of birth of the applicant has

been made the basis for the purpose of calculating voluntary retirement ex-gratia amount but it was not mentioned

in the circular dated 9.2.2007 as to the necessity of date of birth to calculate and pay ex-gratia amount upto his

normal date of retirement as per the main clause 1.7.4(a)(II). Hence, Petitioner has claimed the difference of ex-

gratia amount as mentioned in his petition, under Voluntary Retirement Scheme(Golden Hand Shake).

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the eligibility criteria for voluntary retirement ex-gratia

norms has been given in the circular No.CRP/PER/IR/V/621/205 dated 9.2.2007 which provides that employees

who have completed 10 years of service or completed 40 years of age (as on 1.3.2007) may seek voluntary retirement,

by written application. Respondent contended that without considering the date of birth for accepting the eligibility

of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it is very difficult to arrive at age of the employee. The date of birth of an

employee is an essence in arriving the normal date of retirement of any employee. Further, Respondent contended

that as per Standing Orders Sl.No.33, any employee will retire on attaining age of 60 years. When employee’s date of

birth falls in middle of the calendar month, they will be continued till the end of the month for administrative reasons.

When the date of superannuation depends on their date of birth it is untenable to allege that the date of birth of the

Petitioner has no relevance in Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Under the provision of Clause 1.7.4(a)(II), of the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2095

Voluntary Retirement Scheme and also clause 5.3 of Circular denotes that if at all the days in a month are less than

15 days the same has to be ignored. Hence, the allegation of the Petitioner that date of birth for calculation of

ex-gratia doesn’t require is not tenable V.R.S. optees were retiring from their services on submission of applications

for V.R.S. and after accepting the conditions laid down in the circular they retire before their normal date of

retirement in response to the acceptance of conditions and procedures and practices enumerated in the circulars issued

from time to time on the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, Respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition

as devoid of merits.

The perusal of the record would reveal that the normal date of retirement reckonable in respect of the

Petitioner is 8.6.2007 based on his date of birth, i.e., 9.6.1949 as per the conditions laid down in Sl.No.33 of approved

Standing Orders as well as under Clause 5.3 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) circular. The

allegation of the Petitioner that less ex-gratia amount has been paid to him and his date of birth has nothing to do

with the determination of the ex-gratia amount is untenable. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake)

circular dated 9.2.2007 was issued by the M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., regarding introduction of

Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) in S.C.C.L., for its employees. Relevant provision contained in

said circular are extracted below:-

1.7.4.a)(ii)Monetary Terminal Payment (Ex. Gratia): In addition, an employee whose request for voluntary

retirement is accepted would also be entitled to an ex.gratia payment on the following guidelines:

1.7.4.a(i) Ex. Gratia payment equivalent to one and half month’s wages (Basic, VDA & SDA for each completed

year of service

1.7.4(a)(ii), “Monthly wages at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance number of months of service

left before normal date of retirement, whichever is less.

1.7.4..b) Example: An employee who has put in 24 years of service and has got two years two months of

service left for normal retirement will get ex gratia payment for 26 months wages and not 36 months wages.

Further, under Clauses ‘General’, the provision contained under sub-clause, 5.3 and 5.4 are extracted below:-

5.3:

While computing the balance number of months of service left before normal date of retirement for

the purpose of calculating the exgratia amount, 15 days and above will be treated as a month and service less

than 15 days is to be ignored.

5.4:

An employee should submit his application seeking voluntary retirement one month in advance. As he

is opting for voluntary retirement, he is not eligible for any Notice Pay.

Indisputably, Petitioner had applied for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme(GHS) issued by Company

vide circular dated 9.2.2007. As he has moved application for V.R.S. as per circular dated 9.2.2007. It is presumed

that he has gone through all the terms and conditions contained therein and he has agreed and consented it. Now, he

is bound by the terms and conditions contained in circular dated 9.2.2007 for the VRS. His ex.gratia payment has

been determined taking into consideration his date of birth as per the provision contained in the Clause 5.3 of the

scheme. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner that the Date of birth can not be made basis for purpose of calculating

ex.gratia Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not acceptable, because provision contained in clause 5.3 and 5.4 is very

much part and parcel of the Golden Handshake scheme. As the Petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement under

the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (GHS) vide circular dated 9.2.2007 voluntarily, hence, he is bound by the terms

and conditions contained in circular dated 9.2.2007. Respondent Company in view of his eligibility under the VRS

scheme, has accepted his application and made the payment of ex-gratia amount as per the rules and guidelines

contained in circular dated 9.2.2007. However, Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and in cross examination

WW1 states, “I have gone through the circular dt.9.2.2007 before applying for VRS. A letter was sent to me

accepting my VRS application. No, I have not sent any letter to the Management for clarification of the circular

15/20.3.2007 my VRS was accepted. My VRS application was filed on 22.2.2007. No condition was mentioned in

the Voluntary Retirement Scheme acceptance letter. I have seen Point No.1.7.4.a), and there was an explanation in

Point No.1.7.4.b). The witness adds that explanation is irrelevant. I have seen clause No.5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 of the

circular. The witness adds, the above 5.3 and 5.8 are vague and irrelevant to the main clause. I have not given any

letter to the Management regarding the vagueness of the above stated clauses before my voluntary retirement. I was

retired in the year 2007 and I have filed this MP in the year 2014. I have not given any explanation in my MP

application about the delay of 7 years in filing this MP.” Thus, the Petitioner witness WW1 has admitted that before

applying for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme, he has gone through the provisions of circular dated 9.2.2007

and thereafter he has applied for Voluntary Retirement. Thus, he was aware of the terms and conditions contained in

the scheme. Now, at this stage he can not be permitted to challenge the terms and conditions of VRS Scheme as

mentioned in the circular dated 9.2.2007 and for the necessity of date of birth for ex-gratia, Petitioner’s application

for Voluntary Retirement under the scheme has been accepted vide letter dated 15/20.3.2007. Now, he is not

permitted to challenge the provision contained in Clause 5.3 and 5.8 of scheme stating that these are vague.

However, he never took a pain earlier before applying for VRS to enquire about the terms of Voluntary Retirement

2096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Scheme from Respondent Management. Now, he is too late to allege ambiguity of these clauses of the scheme.

However, in his cross examination WW1 has stated that Eex.M1 is the acceptance letter dated 15/20.3.2007 of his

VRS. He received the Ex.M1 on 31.3.2007. He had not given any objection to the Respondent after receipt of

Ex.M1. Thus, at the stage of accepting Ex.M1 dated 15/20.3.2007 he had not raised any objection against the terms

and conditions of VRS and after an inordinate delay of about 7 years he has filed this petition, challenging the terms

and conditions of VRS scheme and Ex-gratia amount determined thereunder. Such plea of Petitioner is also not

acceptable due to delay and latches.

On the other hand Respondent has examined witness MWI who has deposed in his testimony that the

payment of ex-gratia has been calculated by following the conditions laid down in the circular dated 9.2.2007.

Further, MWI stated that the VRS Ex.gratia payments for June 2009 to the tune of Rs. 20,684-00 is not admissible as

the period is less than 15 days in the month of June, 2009. The guidelines laid down under SI No5.3 of the circular

No. CRPPER/IRN621/205, dated 9-2-2007 shall clarify for these allegations. The count between 1^st June 2009 to 8^th

June, 2009 is only 8 days and it is less than 15 days, hence the part period in June 2009 is not taken into consideration

for calculation of ex-gratia. The difference of V R ex-gratia (@ of March, 2007 to the tune of Rs. 10,906-11 is also

not admissible as it has been clarified under clause 508 of the circular that employees applying for Voluntary

Retirement Scheme (Golden Hand Shake) during the period from 9-2-2007 to 28-2-2007 the basic of wage of

February, 2007 wages shall be taken for the purpose of computation of ex-gratia. This witness was cross examined

by petitioner counsel but nothing has been elicited to discredit testimony of MW1 and no contradiction found in the

statement of MW1. Statement of MW1 has also been fortified by the documents exhibits Ex. MI to Ml6. Thus the

plea of the petitioner that he has not been paid ex-gratia amount according to terms and conditions contained in

circular dated 9-2-2007, is untenable.

In this context I would like to make a reference of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

of Hec.Voluntary Retd. Emps. Welfare Soc. & another vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., & others

AIR SCC 1420 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“An offer for voluntary retirement in terms of a scheme, when accepted, leads to a concluded contract between the

employer and the employee. In terms of such a scheme, an employee has an option either to accept or not to opt

therefor. The scheme is purely voluntary, in terms whereof the tenure of service is curtailed which is permissible in

law. Such a scheme is ordinarily floated with a purpose of downsizing the employees. It is beneficial both to the

employees as well as to the employer. Such a scheme is issued for effective functioning of the industrial undertakings.

Although the Company is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the terms and

conditions of service would be governed by the contract of employment. Thus, unless the terms and conditions of such

a contract are governed by a statute or statutory rules, the provisions of Contract Act would be applicable both at the

formulation of the contract as also the determination thereof. By reason of such a scheme only an invitation of offer is

floated. When pursuant to or in furtherance of such a voluntary retirement scheme an employee opts therefor, he

makes an offer which upon acceptance by the employer gives rise to a contract. Thus, as the matter relating to

voluntary retirement is not governed by any statute, the provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872, therefore, would be

applicable to.”

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case have held:-

“It is not in dispute that the effect of such Voluntary Retirement Scheme is cessation of jural relationship between

the employer and employee. Once an employee opts to retire voluntarily, in terms of the contract he cannot raise a

claim for a higher salary unless by reason of a statute he becomes entitled thereto. He may also become entitled

thereto even if a policy in that behalf is formulated by the Company.”

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (Supra), I find no force in the plea of Petitioner that ex-gratia amount has

not been paid as per circular dated 9.2.2007. However, he can not be permitted to challenge the terms and

conditions of VRS., contained in circular dated 9.2.2007, as the Petitioner before applying for Voluntary Retirement

under the Scheme through all the terms and conditions of circular dated 9.2.2007. Further, he never raised any

objection or approached to authority to make clear his doubt regarding scheme before moving his application under

scheme and a acceptance of the same. Moreover, his VRS has been accepted long back and he has received the

ex.gratia amount vide letter dated 15/20.3.2007, now, he is estopped to raise any objection against it. Petitioner’s

contention that there is no necessity of date of birth for calculating ex-gratia, and same is not tenable in view of the

Law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court since, it was not case of normal superannuation of employee.

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

above, I am of the considered view that the petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and is liable to be

dismissed, hence, petition stands dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 10^th day of

April, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2097

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner:

Respondent:

WW1: Sri V. Sriranganayakulu

MW1: Sri Berugu Sudarshanam

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Workman

Ex.W1: Initial appointment order of WW1 dt. 12.8.1975

Ex.W2: Reply to RTI application of Petitioner by Respondent dt.28.9.2013

Ex.W3: Office copy of representation of Petitioner to the Respondent regarding excess recovery of 11 days musters,

dt. 10.8.2007

Ex.W4: Office copy of representation of Petitioner to the Respondent dt. 22.10.2013.

Ex.W5: Photostat copy of VRS circular dt.9.2.2007 along with details payment in lieu of it to the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Photostat copy of acceptance letter for VRS of Petitioner dt.15/20.3.2007 by the Respondent.

Ex.M2: Photostat copy of employee persona record form dt. 1.3.97

Ex.M3: Photostat copy of circular of Voluntary Retirement Scheme dt. 9.2.2007

Ex.M4: Photostat copy of name removal letter in r/o Petitioner on acceptance of VRS 31.3.2007

Ex.M5: Photostat copy of Quarter vacation certificate issued to Petitioner dt. 4.9.2007

Ex.M6: Photostat copy of reply under RTI Act to the Petitioner dt.17.7.2010

Ex.M7: Photostat copy of reply under RTI Act to the Petitioner dt.4.3.2011

Ex.M8: Photostat copy of lr. furnishing information under RTI Act to the Petitioner dt.12.12.2012

Ex.M9: Photostat copy of lr. furnishing information under RTI Act to the Petitioner dt.28.9.2013

Ex.M10: Photostat copy of cheque and acknowledgement of the Petitioner dt.28.9.13

Ex.M11: Photostat copy of circular implementation of new standing orders by the Respondent Company dt. 6.8.94

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 948.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान

la[;k 121 /2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-11012/29/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 121/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Air India Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/05/2024.

[No. L-11012/29/2015– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 27^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 121/2015

Between:

Sri D. Mallesh,

S/o Yadaiah,

D.No.9-3-10/4/2,

Hashmathpet, Old Bowenpalli,

Secunderabad – 500 028.

..….Petitioner

2098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The CMD,

Air India Ltd., Airlines House,

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi- 110 001.

The Dy. General Manager (Pers)

Air India Ltd., Engineering Complex,

Begumpet,

Hyderabad -500 016.

The Regional Director,

Air India Ltd.,

Chennai.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Nagendra Rao, S. Dev Raj & K.Naga Raju Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-11012/29/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 2.11.2015

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

the management of Air India Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd., Hyderabad in not regularizing the services of

Sri D. Mallesh S/o Yadaiah in the post of Helper (Canteen) is justified? To what relief is the workman is

entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 121/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned

and Petitioner filed claim statement.

2. Respondent set ex-parte as no counter filed after giving several opportunities.

3. After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him, the

Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has not

substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 27^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 949.—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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k 11 /2020) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/10/2020-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2099

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 11/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/04/2024.

[No. L-22012/10/2020– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20^th day of February, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2020

Between:

The Vice President(Shri Bandari Lingaiah)

Quarter No.39T, SCEU (CITU),

Somagudem SMG Corner Colony,

Bellampalli (Telengana) – 504 251.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bellampalli Area,

Mancherial District – 504208.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

None

For the Respondent

: Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/ 10/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 3.7.2020

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

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

SCHEDULE

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

punishment of dismissal from the service on the grounds of absenteeism of Sri Maheboob Ali, Ex-General

Mazdoor, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 11/2020 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Notice sent to Petitioner

returned unserved with endorsement, “No such person in this address, hence returned.” Previous notice returned with

endorsement, “Addressee expired”. As notices are returned, case is dismissed for default and as such, a ‘No Claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 20^th day of

February, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

2100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 950.—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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k 126 /2015) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/69/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 126/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/05/2024.

[No. L-22012/69/2015– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 126/2015

Between:

Sri B. Appa Rao,

Vice President,

Singareni Mines and Engg. Workers Union,

DA-1382, Panjabgadda, Amavaram-507118.

Kothagudem, Khammam Distt. Telengana.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chairman cum Managing Director,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Singareni Bhawan,

Hyderabad -500 001.

The Director (PAW),

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem – 507101.

The Dy. Chief Medical Officer,

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem – 507101.

… Respondents

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2101

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/69/2015-IR(CM-II) dated

13.10.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

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

is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. SCCL, in not promoting the Para Medical Staff and not

implementing the Cadre Scheme in respect of Para Medical Staff and the action of the Management in

denying promotion to Shri A. Venkateswar Rao, Lab. Technician, T & S Grade-C to Grade-B, working in

the Main Hosptial, Kothagudem is legal and justified? If not, the Para Medical Staff and the workman are

entitled to what relief ?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 126/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned

and Petitioner filed claim statement.

After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Record shows that the case is posted for Petitioner

evidence since 12.12.2017. Despite providing sufficient opportunity, the claim of the Petitioner has not been

substantiated by any evidence. Due to non-appearance of Petitioner and in absence of evidence, a ‘No-claim’ award

is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 18^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 951.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान

la[;k 32 /2021) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-20013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 951.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 32/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Food Corporation of India. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 29^th day of April, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 32/2021

Between:

Smt. T. Krishnaveni,

H.No.5-8-421/1, Near Employment Office,

BTS, Nalgonda-508001.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Area Manager,

M/s Food Corporation of India Godown,

Pedabanda Road, Gollaguda Village,

Nalgonda-508001.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: Dr. T. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/38/2019-B1, dated 27/4/2021 referred the

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

management of M/s Food Corporation of India Godown, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda is justified in

terminating the services of Smt. T. Krishnaveni, Ex-workman or not? If not to what relief Smt Krishnaveni

is entitled to ?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D No. 32/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice

served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement from the

Petitioner, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 29^th day of

April, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2103

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 952.—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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k 29 /2011) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/31/2011-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 29/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22012/31/2011– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24^th day of April , 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2011

Between:

Shri G. Rama Rao,

Timberman rep. by Sri Syed Khasim Hussain,

H.No. 11-2-71, Sree Nagar Colony,

New Paloncha(PO)

Khammam Distt-507115.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Dy. General Manager,

P.K-1, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Manuguru (PO), Khammam District.

Khammam.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Sri M.V.L Narsaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/31/2011-(IR(CM-II) dated

04.07.2011 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Manuguru Division

Khammam District (AP) in not considering the change of date of birth of Shri G. Rama Rao, Timberman,

2104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

PK-I Inc, on the basis of Study and Conduct Certificate issued by the Head Master of Sri Ramachandra High

School, Kothagudem is justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 29/2011 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner Evidence. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner

but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any evidence by Petitioner, the case is dismissed

and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 24^th day of

April, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 953.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

54 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 54/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 54/2018

Between:

Kumari Kothakonda Rajani,

D/o Guruvaiah,

H.No.4-7-70, Autonagar, N.T.P.C.,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2105

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

: Representative

AWARD

Kumari Kothakonda Rajani who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman)

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

Organization seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of

service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 954.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

53 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/31/2011-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

2106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 53/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 53/2018

Between:

Smt. Chinthala Sunitha,

W/o Prakash,

H.No.6-5-273/18,

Power House colony,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

: Representative

AWARD

Smt. Chinthala Sunitha who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence, a ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2107

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 955.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

55 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 955.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 55/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 55/2018

Between:

Smt. Punnam Sailatha,

W/o Hanumanthu,

H.No.6-5-301, Power House colony,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

: Representative

2108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Smt. Punnam Sailatha who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 956.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

56 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 956.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 56/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 56/2018

Between:

Smt. Narsdela Ramadevi

W/o Srinivas,

H.No.1173, D Type,

Jawaharnagar,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2109

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

Smt. Nardela Ramadevi who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 957.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

58 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 957.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 58/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 58/2018

Between:

Smt. Gorla Sarala,

W/o Bhasker Reddy,

R/o H.No.6-5-343, Power House Colony,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

Smt. Gorla Sarala who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2111

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 958.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

57 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम- II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 958—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 57/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 57/2018

Between:

Smt. Ananthagiri Swathi,

W/o Srikanth Reddy,

H.No.6-5-496/6, Power House colony,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

2112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Smt. Ananthagiri Swathi who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 959.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

59 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 959.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 59/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 59/2018

Between:

Smt. Pyndla Sangeetha Laxmi,

R/o H.No.6-5-231, Power House Colony,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2113

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

: Representative

AWARD

Smt. Pyndla Sangeetha Laxmi who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the

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

CMPF Organization seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as

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

fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 960.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

60 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

2114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 960.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 60/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 60/2018

Between:

Kumari Srikonda Sunitha,

D/o Rajaiah,

H.No. 6-1-83/98/4, Prashanth Nagar,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

Kumari Sirikonda Sunitha who worked as Data Entry Operator who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner

has not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence, A ‘No claim’ award is passed. Transmit.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2115

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 961.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

52 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 961.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 52/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 52/2018

Between:

Smt. Pittala Anitha,

W/o Satynarayana,

H.No.D-317, Gandhinagar,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

2116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Smt. Pittala Anitha who worked as Data Entry Operator(who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition

under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization seeking for reinstatement into

service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc.,

and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that Petitioner is not

attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has not adduced evidence to

substantiate her claim. Hence. A ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 962.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

51 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 962.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 51/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 51/2018

Between:

Smt. Parsa Paripurna,

W/o Chandar,

H.No.7-2-533/285/1, Ganganagar,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2117

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

Smt. Parsa Paripurna who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence, a ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई, 2024

का.आ. 963.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला खान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k

50 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

2118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 963.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 50/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Mines Provident Fund Organization and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 50/2018

Between:

Smt. Eagala Saritha,

W/o Sathish,

H.No.16-3-311/1, Thirumalanagar,

Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner,

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization,

Police Line, Hirapur,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826014.

The General Manager,

M/s. Coal Mines Provident Fund Regional Office,

Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

Telengana State

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri R. Eshwar Prasad, Representative

For the Respondent

Representative

AWARD

Smt. Eagala Saritha who worked as Data Entry Operator (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents CMPF Organization

seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

On the date fixed for Ex-parte Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. The record shows that

Petitioner is not attending the proceedings since 24.3.2023 and despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner has

not adduced evidence to substantiate her claim. Hence, a ‘No claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 26^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2119

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 964.—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;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान la[;k 2 /2018) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@04@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y-22012/87/2017-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 964.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 2/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/04/2024.

[No. L-22012/87/2017– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 18^th day of January, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 2/2018

Between:

The General Secretary (Sri Riaz Ahmed),

Singareni Mines & Engg. Workers Union (HMS),

Qtr.No.C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani – 505209.

. ..….Petitioner/Union

AND

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Ramagundam-II Area, GDK-8 Inc., Colony,

Godavarikhani – 505211.

… Respondent

2120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent

: Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/87/2017-IR(CM.II) dated 16.11.2017

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

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

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area,

Adilabad Dist.(TS), in awarding punishment of suspending for the period from 24.8.2015 to 2.9.2015

without wages in respect of Sri T. Venkateshwarlu, Security Guard, S & PC Department., SCCo.Ltd.,

Ramagundam-II Area, is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 2/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance.

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

opportunities have been provided to him. Record reveals that the matter is posted for filing of claim statement since

2018. Due to absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement, case is dismissed for default and a ‘No claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the 18^th day

of January, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 965.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

जनिेिक, सतीि िवन मेमोररयल अस्ट्पताल, िररकोटा सतीि िवन अंतररक्ष केंर, िार िररकोटा, नेल्लोर; सीएमडी,

ग्लोबल िॉजस्ट्पटल, पेरुंबक्कम, चेन्नई- (तजमलनाडु); जनिेिक, अंतरााष्ट्रीय पयाावरि स्ट्वच्छता एवं सावािजनक स्ट्वास्ट््य

अकािमी, जविय एन्जलेव, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों सजचव, सुल्लुरुपेटा कर्माका समाख्या (सीटू),

सुल्लुरुपेटा, नेल्लोर (ए.पी.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-

िैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 10/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/118/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2121

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Director, Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Harikota Satish Dhawan Space Center,SHAR Harikota,

Nellore ;The CMD,Global Hospital, Perumbakkam, Chennai-(Tamilnadu) ;The Director, International

Academy of Environmental Sanitation & Public Health, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi, and The Secretary,

Sullurupeta Karmika Samakhya (CITU), Sullurupeta, Nellore (A.P), which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 15/05/2024.

[No. L-42011/118/2017– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 1^st day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 10/2019

Between:

The Secretary,

Sullurupeta Karmika Samakhya (CITU),

GNT Road, Sullurupeta, ,

Nellore(AP)-524121.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Director,

Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Harikota ,

Satish Dhawan Space Center, SHAR,

Harikota, Nellore-524124

2. The CMD

Global Hospital

ECR Link Rd, Perumbakkam

Chennai(Tamilnadu)-600100

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Sri Gopal Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Vijay Kumar Goud, Advocate for R1

Sri Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate for R2

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/118/2017 (IR(DU)) dated 10.8.2018

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

the management of M/s. Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Harikota and The CMD Global Hospital and their

workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Sullurupeta Karmika Samakhya (CITU) for employment of the erstwhile contract

labour (Lists attached), who were working with erstwhile Contractor M/s Global Hospital, with the new

contractor M/s Apollo Hospital Enterprise Ltd, Chennai in Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Sriharikota is

legal and proper? If so, what relief are they entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?

2122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as ID No. 10/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

None present for Petitioner. Counsel for Respondent No.2 filed memo submitting that since long time

Petitioner is not attending the court nor filed amended neat copy of claim petition. Perused the record. On previous

dates i.e 13.10.2022 and 22.6.2023, Petitioner was directed to rectify the defect in cause-title as per reference. But no

compliance has been made till date as per directions and Petitioner is also not attending the proceedings. It seems

that the Petitioner is not interested to prosecute his case. In absence of Claim statement, the case is dismissed and a

‘No-Claim’ Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 1^st day of May,

2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 966.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

प्रिान जनयोिा, एसडीएससी, एसएचएआर, इसरो, श्रीिररकोटा, एसपीएसआर नेल्लोर, आंध्र प्रिेि; मेससा ग्लोबल

िॉजस्ट्पटल, 439,चेरन नगर, पेरुंबक्कम, चेन्नई, तजमलनाडु, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सजचव, (सीटू), िीएनटी

रोड, सुल्लुरुपेटा, एसपीएसआर नेल्लोर (ए.पी.), के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि-

श्रम न्यायालय- िैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 18/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै

िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/147/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 966.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Principal Employer, SDSC, SHAR,ISRO, Sriharikota, SPSR Nellore, Andra Pradesh ;M/s Global

Hospital,439,Cheran Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu , and The Secretary,(CITU),GNT Road,

Sullurupeta, SPSR Nellore (A.P), which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 15/05/2024.

[No. L-42011/147/2018– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 1^st day of May, 2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2123

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 18/2019

Between:

Sh. Ch. Sudhakara Rao

Secretary,(CITU)

GNT Road, Sullurupeta,

SPSR Nellore (A.P)-524121.

.….Petitioner

AND

1. The Principal Employer,

SDSC, SHAR,ISRO,Dept. Of Space,

Govt. Of India, Sriharikota, SPSR Nellore

Andra Pradesh -524124

2. M/s Global Hospital,439,

Cheran Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai,

Tamilnadu-600100.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Sri Gopal Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Vijay Kumar Goud, Advocate for R1

Sri Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate for R2

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42011/147/2018- (IR(DU)) referred the

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

management of M/s. SDSC, SHAR,ISRO, Dept. Of Space and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the Industrial dispute between the management of M/s. International Academy of Enviromental

Sanitation and Public Health, New Delhi Contractor of M/s SDSC, SHAR, ISRO, Dept. of Space, Govt. of

India Sriharikota, SPSR Nellore Distt. Principal Employer and their workmen represented by

Sh. Ch. Sudhakara Rao Secretary, (CITU) Nellore District regarding non-payment of bonus of Smt. K. Vani,

Safaikarmachari and 39 others is fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman and union are entitled to?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 18/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

None present for Petitioner. Counsel for Respondent No.2 filed memo submitting that since long time

Petitioner is not attending the court nor filed amended neat copy of claim petition. Perused the record. On previous

dates i.e 13-10-2022 and 22-6-2023, Petitioner was directed to rectify the defect in cause-title as per reference. But

no compliance has been made till date as per directions and Petitioner is also not attending the proceedings. It seems

that the Petitioner is not interested to prosecute his case. In absence of Claim statement, the case is dismissed and a

‘No-Claim’ Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 1^st day of May,

2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

2124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 967.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

एओसी, वायु सेना स्ट्टेिन, िकीमपेट, जसकंिराबाि-(एपी), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और वायु सेना नागररक

कमाचारी संघ,जसकंिराबाि, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-

िैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 60/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/155/2022-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 967.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The AOC, Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad-(AP),and Air Force Civilian Employees Union,

Secunderabad, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15/05/2024.

[No. L-42011/155/2022– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25^th day of April , 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2022

Between:

Air Force Civilian Employees Union,

H.No.35-32/201, Prem Residency, G.R Colony

Near Indian High School, Naredment,

Secunderabad-500094.

..….Petitioner

AND

The AOC,

Air Force Station,

Hakimpet,

Secunderabad(AP)-500014.

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Representative

For the Respondent

: M/s. Ravinder Viswanath & P. Damodar Reddy, Advocates

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2125

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42011/ 155/ 2022-(IR(DU)) dated

27.05.2022 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of Air Force Station, Hakimpet and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the dispute raised by Air Force Civilian Union, Secunderabad regarding their charter of demands

dated 18.07.2020 is industrial dispute’under I.D. Act, 1974?

If yes at S.No.1, whether Air Force Civilian Employees Union, Secunderabad has locus standi to raise

industrial dispute regarding their charter of demands dated 18.07.2020 under ID Act, 1974 against the

management of AOC, Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad for civilian employees at Air Force

Station, Hakimpet?

If yes at S.No. 2, whether the charter of demands dated 18.07.2020 raised by Air Force Civilian Employees

Union, Secunderabad against the management of AOC, Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Secunderabad for

civilian employees at Air Force Station, Hakimpet is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs are

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

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 60/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in

support of his claim despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him. In absence of evidence in support of Petitioner’s

claim, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 25^th day of

April, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 968.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

जनिेिक, सतीि िवन मेमोररयल अस्ट्पताल, िररकोटा सतीि िवन अंतररक्ष केंर, िार िररकोटा, नेल्लोर;

सीएमडी,ग्लोबल िॉजस्ट्पटल, पेरुंबक्कम, चेन्नई- (तजमलनाडु); जनिेिक, अंतरााष्ट्रीय पयाावरि स्ट्वच्छता एवं सावािजनक

स्ट्वास्ट््य अकािमी, जविय एन्जलेव, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों सजचव, सुल्लुरुपेटा कर्माका समाख्या

(सीटू), सुल्लुरुपेटा, नेल्लोर (ए.पी.),के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-

िैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 108/2018) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/22/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

2126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 968.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

The Director, Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Harikota Satish Dhawan Space Center,SHAR Harikota,

Nellore ;The CMD,Global Hospital, Perumbakkam, Chennai-(Tamilnadu) ;The Director, International

Academy of Environmental Sanitation & Public Health, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi, and The Secretary,

Sullurupeta Karmika Samakhya (CITU), Sullurupeta, Nellore (A.P), which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 15/05/2024.

[No. L-42011/22/2018– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 1^st day of May, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 108/2018

Between:

The Secretary,

Sullurupeta Karmika Samakhya (CITU)

GNT Road, Sullurupeta,

Nellore (AP)-52412.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The Director,

Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Harikota

Satish Dhawan Space Center, SHAR

Harikota, Nellore-524124.

2. The CMD,

Global Hospital,

ECR Link Rd, Perumbakkam,

Chennai(Tamilnadu)-600100.

3. The Director,

International Academy of Environmental

Sanitation & Public Health,

Near Mother’s Pride School,

Vijay Enclave,

New Delhi-110045.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Shri Gopal Rao. Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri Vijay Kumar Goud, Advocate for R1

M/s.Y Ranjeeth Reddy & V.N Ramachandra, Advocates for R2

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2127

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42011/22/2018 (IR(DU)) dated 30.8.2018

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

the management of M/s. Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital, Harikota and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demands of Union, Sullurupeta Karmika Samakhya (CITU), on the behalf of 29 Contract

Labour (Listed) for (i) Payment of one month notice pay, and retrenchment compensation from Contractor

Global Hospitals; (ii) Payments of Bonus & leave encashment from Sub-Contractor International Academy

of Environmental Sanitation and Public Health(IAESPH); (iii) Absorption of contract Labour with Principal

Employer Satish Dhawan Memorial Hospital and; (iv) Employment of Contract Labour with Principal

Employer’s present Contractor Apollo Hospitals, are fair, just & legal? If so, to what benefits the concerned

workmen are entitled to?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No108/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

None present for petitioner. Counsel for Respondent No.2 filed memo submitting that since long time

petitioner is not attending the court and not filed amended neat copy of claim petition. Perused the record. On

previous dates i.e 13-10-2022 and 22-6-2023, petitioner was directed to rectify the defect in cause-title as per

reference. But no compliance has been made till date as per directions and petitioner is also not attending the

proceedings. It seems that the petitioner is not interested is not prosecute his case. In absence of Claim statement,

‘No-Claim’ Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 1^st day of

May, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2024

का.आ. 969.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

उप जनिेिक (प्रभारी), केंरीय यूनानी जचदकत्सा संस्ट्थान, एराागड्डा, िैिराबाि; एमएस। आस्ट्था जसजयोररटी एंड मैनपावर

सर्वासेि, िब्सीगुडा, िैिराबाि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती रेिमा बेगम, कामगार,के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि- श्रम न्यायालय- िैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभा संख्या 135/2018) को िैसा

दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 15/05/2024 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/80/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2024

S.O. 969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 135/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

2128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Deputy Director (Incharge), Central Institute of Unani Medicine, Erragadda, Hyderabad;M/s. Astha

Security and Manpower Services, Habsiguda, Hyderabad, and Smt. Reshma Begum, Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15/05/2024.

[No. L-42012/80/2018– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD

Present: -

Shri Irfan Qamar,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 2^nd day of April, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 135/2018

Between:

Smt. Reshma Begum,

H.No.10-5-391/55/81/B, Sayad Nagar,

Banjara Hills, Road No.12,

Hyderabad – 500 034.

-- Petitioner

AND

The Deputy Director(Incharge)

Central Institute of Unani Medicine,

Opp. ESI Hospital, A.G. Colony Road,

Erragadda, Hyderabad- 500 038.

M/s. Astha Security and Manpower Services,

Flat No.202, 3^rd Floor, Madusha Enclave,

Street No.5, Habsiguda, Hyderabad – 500 007.

-- Respondents

Appearance:

For the Petitioner

Shri Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent :

M/s. Ravinder Viswanath, Sr.Central Government Counsel

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi vide

order No. L-42012/80/2018-IR(DU) dated 3.10.2018 whereunder this Tribunal is required to adjudicate the dispute

i.e.,

“Whether regularization of service is an industrial dispute under the I.D. Act, 1947, if so, whether the

demand of 19 casual workers (as per list) working through various contractors for the last decade for

regularization of service to Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine is legal and justified? If yes,

what relief the casual workers of central Council for Research in Unani Medicine are entitled to and what

directions are necessary in this case?”

After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No. 135/2018 in this Tribunal and notices were issued

to both the parties and secured their presence.

During the pendency of proceeding, Counsel for Petitioner filed an IA with the prayer to withdraw present

industrial dispute case. Respondent has no objection. In view of prayer made by the Petitioner in IA and as well as

‘no objection’ by Respondent, IA allowed. Thus, industrial dispute is decided as withdrawn.

The reference is thus disposed of.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri and corrected by me on this the 2^nd day of April, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2129

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 970.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में,केन्रीय सरकार

मुख्य जनवााचन पिाजिकारी, मुख्य जनवााचन पिाजिकारी कायाालय, भोपाल (म.प्र.), के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री रामदकिन चढार,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि-श्रम न्यायालय,

िबलपुर पंचाट (संिभा संख्या CGIT/LC/R/34/2022) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025-07/2024-101-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/34/2022) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to The Mukhya Nirvachan Padadhikari ,Mukhya Nirvachan Padadhikari Karyalay, Bhopal

(M.P),and Shri Ram kishan Chadhar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 17.05.2024.

[No. L-42025-07/2024-101– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/34/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Ramkishan Chadhar

R/o. H.No. 8/28, Bengali Colony

Panchsheel Nagar, Bhopal (MP) -462003

Workman

Versus

The Mukhya Nirvachan Padadhikari

Mukhya Nirvachan Padadhikari Karyalay,

17, Arera Colony, Post Box No.-1164

Bhopal (MP) - 462003

Management

2130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 1^st day of May 2024)

As per letter dated 29/06/2022 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, the reference

is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. J-1(1-6)/2022-IR dt. 29/06/2022. The dispute under reference relates to:

^^D;k Jh jkefd'k p<+kj deZdkj dks vukosnd laLFkku eSllZ eq[; fuokZpu inkf/kdkjh dk;kZy;] Hkksiky ¼e/;

izns'k½ }kjk vkosnd dks dke ls fudkyk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS \ ;fn ugha] rks mDr deZdkj dks dc ls vkSj fdu ykHkksa ds

lkFk ukSdjh ij iqu% cgky fd;k tkuk pkfg, \**

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. The

workman appeared and filed his Statement of Claim. Management also appeared but did not file any written statement

of defense.

According to the workman, he was first appointed as a Driver in the office of The Chief Election Officer on

01.05.2019 to drive official vehicle MP02/AV1950 and MP02/AV1880. He worked continuously till 21.07.2021. He

had maintained a logbook in which he used to enter the details of miles covered by him as a driver of these vehicles

which was counter signed by the officers who used the vehicles. He was paid Rs. 13000/- per month as his wages.

Deduction with respect to EPF Scheme and Insurance Scheme were also made by the employers i.e. the management.

His attendance was recorded in the muster roll prepared by management. The management illegally terminated his

services without any notice or compensation which is against Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes

Act 1947 (in short the ‘Act’). He raised a dispute which could not be resolved hence this reference. He has prayed his

reinstatement with back wages and benefits and also be regularized as a driver.

Though management appeared in this case through its authorized representatives but none appeared for

management thereafter and no written statement of defense was filed by management. Vide order dated 31.03.2024,

the reference proceeded ex-parte against management.

In evidence the workman filed his affidavit. He further filed and proved photocopy documents office order

dated 19.02.2020, 09.04.2021 Ex. W/1 & W/2, application sent by the workman to the Chief Election Officer on

09.12.2021 Ex. W/3, letter dated 01.11.2021 sent by M.P. Schedule Caste Commission to the management on the

representation of the workman and other representation of the workman sent to the management on 13.08.2021 which

are Ex. W/4 & W/5. The affidavit of the workman is un cross examined inspite opportunity given to management.

I have heard ex-parte management of learned Counsel for workman Shri Ashok Shrivastava and have gone

through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

The first point to be considered is whether the work discharged by the workman is an incident of exercise of

sovereign power exercised by the management i.e. the Chief Election Officer. Conducting election is no doubt an

incident of exercise of sovereign power but taking the work of driver from a person can by no stretch of argument.

Hence, the workman is held to be a workman as defined U/S. 2(j) of the Act.

Section 25-B, 25-G, 25-F and 25-H are being reproduced as follows:-

In his uncross examined affidavit, the workman has corroborated his case as mentioned above. The

documents particularly Ex. W/1 and W/2 which are office orders issued by the Section Officer and Deputy Chief

Election Officer corroborate the statement of the workman. Ex. W/1 is order in which the workman has been allotted

a Government vacant for driving which is used by Joint Chief Election Officer. In Ex. W/2 also which is an office

order, the name of the workman finds place at serial No. 38.

From the above evidence, the workman is held to have successfully proved his continuous engagement as a

driver with the management for at least 240 days in every year till the date of his disengagement. Since, there is

evidence on record inform of the uncontroverted affidavit of the workman to establish that he was not paid any notice

or compensation, his disengagement by management is held in violation of the Act. Consequently, in the light of facts

and circumstances of the case in hand, the workman is held entitled to be reinstated but without back wages. He is

also held entitled to litigation cost computed at Rs. 10000/- to be payable to him by management within 30 days from

date of publication of Award in Official Gazette, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date of Award till

payment. Reference is answered accordingly.

DATE:- 01/05/2024

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2131

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 971.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

अध्यक्ष/सीईओ, एरा इंफ्रा इंिीजनयररंग जलजमटेड, सेजटर-62, नोएडा (यूपी); मिाप्रबंिक, एनटीपीसी जलजमटेड, सीपत,

जबलासपुर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और अध्यक्ष, छत्तीसगढ कमाचारी मििूर एकता यूजनयन, ियालबंि,

जबलासपुर, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सि-श्रम न्यायालय, िबलपुर पंचाट (संिभा

संख्या CGIT/LC/R/63/2015) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 17.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/57/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/63/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to The Chairman /CEO, Era Infra Engineering Ltd., Sector-62, Noida (U.P.); The General Manager,

NTPC Ltd., Sipat, Bilaspur, and The President , Chatisgarh Karmachari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Dayalbandh,

Bilaspur, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 17.05.2024.

[No. L-42011/57/2015– IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2015

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

The President

Chatisgarh Karmachari Mazdoor Ekta Union,

Dayalbandh, Bilaspur-495001

Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman /CEO

Era Infra Engineering Ltd.,

C-56/41, Sector-62

Noida (U.P.)-201301

2. The General Manager

NTPC Ltd., Sipat, PO-Ujjawal Nagar

Bilaspur - 495001

Management

2132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Passed on this 24^th day of April, 2024.)

As per letter dated 17/06/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

number L-42011/57/2015-IR(DU) dated 17/06/2015. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the management of Era Infra Engineering is justified in denying terminal dues to

26 contract workers as per schedule attached. If not what relief they are entitled to and from which date ?”

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

them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The workman have filed their separate statements of claim through the president of the union which contain

identical allegations which are mainly that they worked with the management of M/s. Era Infra Engineering and were

working at the site of NTPC during the periods mentioned in the statements of claims and were disengaged from

different dates mentioned without any notice or compensation. They were entitled to one month notice pay,

compensation @ of 15 days salary for every year they worked, leave encashment, bonus and on paid salary mentioned

in their statements of claims, which was not paid by the management of M/s. Era Infra Engineering nor was it paid by

their principal employer the NTPC. They have requested that they be held entitled to payment of these dues from the

management.

None of the managements filed any written statement of defense.

No evidence was filed by any of the parties.

The initial burden to prove the claim is on the workmen in which they have miserably failed by not adducing

any evidence in support. Hence, holding the claim of the workmen not proved, the reference deserves to be answered

against them and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 24/04/2024

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

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 972.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

इंजडयन एयरलाइंस जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान

la[;k 4 /2010) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20013/01/2024-आईआर (सी.एम-I)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 4/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

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

Indian Airlines Limited. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 14^th day of February, 2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2133

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 4/2010

Between:

Sri V. Ravindra Kumar,

S/o Sri S. S Bivaiah,

L/178, Ramgopal Pet,

Secunderabad -3.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager (Commercial),

Indian Airlines Limited., S.R.,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu State.

….Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. Ch. Indrasena Reddy & D. Vilas, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas, Advocates

AWARD

Sri V. Ravindra Kumar who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Indian Airlines Limited,

Chennai seeking for declaring the proceeding dated 11.2.2015 issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set

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

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

reliefs as this court may deems fit.

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

It is submitted that, the Petitioner joined the service of the respondent organization and put in continuous and

unblemished record of service till he was illegally removed from service by the respondent vide order dated

11.02.2005. It is further submitted that while removing him from service, the respondent has not considered his past

conduct, length of service and gravity of misconduct alleged to have been proved against him, but imposed the capital

punishment of removal from service, which is shockingly disproportionate and do not commensurate with the gravity

of misconduct alleged to have been proved against him. It is submitted that he was issued with a charge sheet dated

31.12.2008 alleging that he has absented to his duties unauthorizedly for about 511 days on 23 occasions during the

period from 07.03.2002 to 31.10.2003. That he has submitted his detailed explanation to the charge sheet denying the

charges leveled against him explaining that due to his ill-health only he was compelled to absent to his duties. It is

submitted that for the alleged period of absence only ill-health is the cause. It is further submitted that he informed

about his ill-health to his higher officials of the respondent organization and the higher officials know about the same

and considering his health condition on several occasions his higher officials also granted leave orally. But the said

period was treated unauthorized absenteeism. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that the issuance of charge sheet

itself is illegal, unjust and contrary to the law, since for the alleged period of absenteeism there was reasonable cause

and the same was considered by the higher officials working under the respondent. Therefore, the said absenteeism

does not constitute any misconduct. Therefore, for no misconduct, the petitioner was issued with a charges sheet, and

the issuance of charge sheet itself is illegal. It is submitted that the entire action taken by the respondent against the

him in removing him from service basing on the illegal charge sheet itself is illegal, unjust, contrary to law and

unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the said removal order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside on

this ground alone. It is further submitted that without considering his explanation to the charge sheet, the respondent

has ordered for an enquiry into the alleged charges and a stage managed enquiry was conducted, wherein the

petitioner was denied all the reasonable opportunities at every stage of enquiry. It is submitted that during the course

of enquiry also the petitioner gave his statement denying the charges leveled against him as false, incorrect and

baseless and explained actual facts and circumstances for the alleged period of unauthorized absenteeisn1 and the

statement of the petitioner was unchallenged and unrebutted. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry also he

has submitted 15 medical and sick certificates for the period from 16.03.2002 to 10,05.2003 and the said certificates

were marked as Ex.D.El to Ex.D.E15 in the enquiry. It is submitted that the said medical and sick certificates were

admitted by the presenting officer on behalf of the respondent and the said documents were taken on record. Whereas

the Enquiry Officer while submitting his report has not at all considered the said medical and sick certificates

produced by the petitioner and he simply treated the alleged charge sheeted period as unauthorized absenteeism. It is

further submitted that during the course of enquiry and in his explanation to the charge sheet he has categorically

stated that because of health problem only he was constrained to absence to his duties and the said absenteeism was

2134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

beyond his control, for which, he also submitted medical and sick certificates to the respondent and the said

certificates were admitted by the respondent, therefore, the petitioner submits that the findings of the enquiry officer

are based on mere surmises and conjectures as he has not at all considered the medical and sick certificates and the

facts and circumstances for the absence of the petitioner during the charge sheeted period. Therefore, the findings of

the enquiry officer are perverse, one sided, illegal and contrary to the material on record. It is submitted that the

entire enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is liable to be vitiated for the reasons stated above. It is further

submitted that after the enquiry was conducted, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.07.2004

proposing the capital punishment of removal from service, for which also the petitioner has submitted his explanation

once again denying the charges leveled against him as false, incorrect and baseless and also pointed out the material

irregularities committed by the Enquiry Officer and without considering the same the respondent has passed final

order of removal from service by accepting the perverse findings of the enquiry officer in toto. Therefore, the removal

order passed by the respondent is illegal, unjust and contrary to law. He submitted that as per the Circulars issued by

respondent from time to time, an employee avail leave by a leave letter or by Phone informing the authorities about

his absence and the same cannot be leave by a leave letter or by constituted unauthorized absence. It is submitted

that for the alleged period petitioner has informed the Respondent authorities about his sickness requested for leave

and the same was sanctioned by the authorities orally. But respondent after about 2 years the petitioner was charge

sheet issued with alleging that he was period mentioned unauthorizedly absented for the alleged in the charge sheet,

which was already sanctioned by the respondent authorities orally, whenever the petitioner same due to his requested

for the health problem. Therefore, the entire action taken by the respondent in removing the petitioner from service

for no misconduct is illegal, unjust, contrary to law and contrary to the Circulars issued by the respondent authorities

from time to time. It is submitted that after he was illegally removed from the service, he also preferred an appeal to

the Executive Director (SR) and the same was rejected by him on 16.04.2009 on untenable grounds and while

rejecting his appeal the appellate authority not considered the appeal as well as actual facts and circumstances of the

case and in a routine manner, the appeal of Petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority, hence the removal

orders passed by the respondent, which were confirmed by the appellate authority is illegal, unjust and contrary to

law. The petitioner reiterates that he has not committed the alleged misconduct nor intention on his part there was

any malafide to cause any loss to the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent has retained so many employees

into service even though they have committed serious misconduct, but the petitioner alone was thrown on streets for

no misconduct. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent amounts to discrimination, arbitrary, illegal and

colourable exercise of powers. It is further submitted ever since from the date of his illegal removal from service, he

remained unemployed and could not secure any alternative employment in spite of his best and honest efforts and he

is the only earning member in his family and due to the illegal removal orders passed by the respondent for no

misconduct, not only himself, but his entire family was thrown on the streets in these hard days for no fault of them.

It is further submitted that now he has recovered from his ill-health and he is perfectly fit to perform his duties.

Therefore, the petitioner prayed to set aside the removal orders dated 11.02.2005 passed by the respondent holding the

same as illegal and arbitrary and grant him the relief of reinstatement into service with full back wages, continuity of

service and all other attendant benefits, in the interest of justice.

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

which runs as follows:

It is submitted that the petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile Indian Airlines at Hyderabad as a Helper

(commercial) on 21.11.1989 and was carrying out functions in that capacity. It is totally false and incorrect that the

petitioner had put in unblemished record of service till he was removed from service vide an order dated 11.2.2005.

The petitioner has been absenting from duties even during the probationary period after joining the service of

erstwhile Indian Airlines on 21.11.1989 and therefore his probationary period was extended by three months w.e.f.

21.5.1990 on account of unsatisfactory performance and bad attendance. Subsequent to the confirmation in service as

a Helper in Commercial Department, the petitioner continued to remain absent unauthorizedly and in the year 1991,

he had absented for 41 days on 10 occasions. A charge sheet was issued to him under the Standing Orders concerning

Discipline and Appeals applicable to him and after holding a Departmental Enquiry he was awarded with the

punishment of Reduction “ in time scale by two stages for one year w.e.f. 1.1.1993". It is further submitted that the

petitioner, inspite of being punished for absenting in the year 1991, had continued to absent from duties even in the

year 1992. He had absented without leave and unauthorizedly for 84 days on 25 occasions in the year 1992. He

was again issued with a charge sheet and after holding a departmental enquiry, he was issued with a show cause

notice by the Commercial Manager, Southern Region, Chennai, vide letter dated 12.8.1993 proposing to impose the

punishment of “Removal from the service of the Corporation". The petitioner had pleaded for mercy on humanitarian

grounds and therefore, the proposed punishment was changed to "Reduction in time scale by two stages with

cumulative effect from 1.11.1993" and communicated to him vide letter No. 5.10.1993 of Commercial Manager,

Chennai. It is further submitted that the petitioner was remaining absent on and of during the subsequent period also.

He had again absented from duties for 63 days on 21 occasions during the year 2000 without prior permission and

intimation to the office. The Station Manager, Hyderabad who was the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the

workman had, however, taken a lenient view and advised him to improve his attendance vide letter dated 20.10.2000

with a view to give him an opportunity to show improvement in his attendant and performance. The petitioner had

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2135

again continued to remained absent during the subsequent period also and he had absented from duties for 42 days

during the period from 1.11.2000 to 19.3.2001. He was again advised to show improvement in his attendance but it

was of no use and the petitioner continued with his habit of absenting form duties without prior permission. It is

further submitted that the petitioner had again absented unauthorizedly for 109 days on 24 occasions during the period

from May, 2001 to March, 2002 for which he was issued with a charge sheet dt. 18.3.2002. An enquiry was held into

the charges leveled against him and the disciplinary authority had issued again a Show Cause Notice dt:.29.1.2003

proposing to impose the punishment of "Removal from service" and the petitioner had again pleaded for mercy and

sympathetic consideration. The Disciplinary Authority had once again taken a lenient view and decided to give a

final opportunity to him, changed the proposed punishment of removal from service to a “Reduction to the post of

Helper (commercial) in the scale of Rs.2860-3700 with basic pay at Rs. 2860/- w.e.f. 9.6.2003” vide order dated.

31.5.2003. It is submitted that the petitioner did not deserve any more sympathetic consideration as he had been a

habitual absentee right from time he joined in the service as erstwhile Indian Airlines as is evident from the facts

stated above. The petitioner had remained absent unauthorizedly for 511 days on 23 occasions during the period from

7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003 which had finally resulted in passing the impugned order dt. 11.2.2005 by the General

Manager (Commercial) Chennai awarding the punishment of removal from the service of the company with

immediate effect. It may be seen from the facts stated above that the past conduct of the petitioner was very

unsatisfactory and the gravity of misconduct alleged against him vide the above chargesheet dt. 31.12.2003, where he

had unauthorisedly absented from duties from 511 days on 23 occasions during the period from 7.3.2002 to

31.10.2003 was very grave in nature and the petitioner had failed to show any justifiable reason for such a long

absenteeism. He was working in the Commercial Department as a Helper and the duties assigned to the Helper in the

Commercial Department includes attending the traveling public in the airport and working in shifts. Absenteeism of

Helpers working in Commercial Department like the petitioner results in hampering the working pattern of the

category of Helpers who work in cycle shifts i.e. morning, general and afternoon shifts and also in the night shifts.

The unauthorized absenteeism of the petitioner had adversely affected the working pattern of the Commercial

Department and the working schedules of his co-workers were also disturbed as they were required to carry out the

functions which are allocated to him in the normal course of functioning of the Department. The impugned order of

punishment of removal from service for the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 511 days was, therefore, very

much justifiable and in commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct especially seen against the past record on

earlier occasions vide letters dt. 12.8.1993 and 29.1.2003. Therefore the punishment of removal from service was

shockingly disproportionate and is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, are totally false and untenable.

There is no provision in the regulations for grant of leave on the basis of such oral communications, and no official of

the respondent company is vested with the powers to grant any leave orally. Any leave should be applied for in a

proper format in the leave card in writing for grant of the same and it should be sanctioned by the authority. There

was no justification for the said period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner for 511 days on 23 occasions in a

span of one year seven months ie. from March, 2002 to October, 2003 and the averments made by the petitioner are,

therefore, totally false. It is submitted that the Service Regulations relating to grant of leave are also published in the

Official Gazettee of India on 12.3.1960 and were amended from time to time there after. The Service Regulations

pertaining to the grant of various types of leave as contained in chapter VIII of the Indian Airlines (General

Employees) Service Regulations are applicable to the petitioner. The Service Regulation 128 provides for grant of

sick leave to an employee to extent of 20 days on half pay or 10 days on full pay for each calender year. Service

Regulation 131 lays down the condition that sick leave for a period exceeding 2 days shall be supported by medical

certificate issued either by the Medical Officer of the of company or a Medical Practitioner Allopathetic system of

Medicine, duly approved by the company. The relevant Service Regulations applicable to the petitioner as stated

above are extracted hereunder.

Indian Airlines (General Employees) Service Regulations:-

SR 128. SICK LEAVE: An employee shall be eligible for sick leave of 20 days on half pay which may be commuted

to 10 days on full pay for each Calendar Year. Sick leave may be accumulated upto 120 days with full pay and may

be availed of on half pay for double the period i.e., upto 240 days.

SR 131. Sick leave for a period exceeding two days shall be supported by Medical Certificate from either the

Medical officer of the Corporation or a Medical Practitioner (of Allopathic System of Medicine) duly approved by the

Corporation.

The charge sheet issued by the company to the petitioner was based on the records maintained by the Time Office of

the company and the allegations made against the petitioner were proved on the basis of such records. The allegation

made by the petitioner stating that the charge sheet was illegal and unjust, is therefore not sustainable and the action

taken by the respondent company on the basis of the enquiry conducted as per the standing orders and the established

procedure was well justified and there was no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings as alleged by the petitioner. It is

submitted that the sickness of the Petitioner was not supported by any documentary proof and he had absented for

longer durations on various occasions during the said period of absenteeism for 511 days on 23 occasions as shown in

charge sheet. When the rules pertaining to grant of sick leave clearly specify that sickness beyond two days shall be

supported by a medical certificate issued by the Company Medical Officer or any Medical Practitioner approved by

2136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Company, the Petitioner remained absent without prior permission or intimation for longer durations such as 32

days, 84 days, 29 days, 91 days and 125 days on each occasion during the period as referred in the charge sheet. It is

submitted that the enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer had considered

all the documents and other exhibits submitted by the Petitioner and also the records produced by the Presenting

Officer of the company and he had arrived at the finding independently on the basis of the evidence available on

record. The Enquiry Officer had clearly held that the petitioner had not applied for leave and had failed to get his

absence regularized by obtaining sanction of leave by the competent authority. The petitioner has no ground to allege

that the entire enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is liable to be vitiated since the enquiry was held in a fair

manner extending all the opportunities to the petitioner for defending his case. There are no irregularities or

infirmities whatsoever in the course of the enquiry. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority has considered all the

facts and circumstances relating to the case and did not find any merit in the appeal made by the petitioner and

therefore he had decided not to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

Having regard to the gravity of misconduct where the petitioner had absented unauthorizedly for 511 days and also

the past adverse record, the Appellate Authority had rejected the Appeal of the petitioner and passed orders

accordingly which were communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. MAA/PER/IR/312 dt. 17.4.2009. It is

submitted that subsequent to the imposition of punishment on the petitioner vide the impugned order, the same was

placed before the Hon'ble National Industrial Tribunal. Mumbai vide Approval Application No. NTB-08 of 2005

under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal had held the proceedings in the above

case and the above petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written submissions against the

application filed by the Respondent Company. The Hon'ble National Industrial Tribunal after having considered the

petition filed by the Respondent Company and also the written submissions and oral representations made by the

above petitioner, had passed orders on 2.5.2006 granting approval for the action taken by the Respondent Company

in passing the impugned removal dated order 11.2.2005. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner as

devoid of merits.

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

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

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

determination:-

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

II.

Whether the action of Respondent Management vide order dated 11.2.2005 in terminating the services of

the Petitioner Sri V. Ravinder Kumar, Helper (Commercial) is legal and justified?

III.

To what relief is the Petitioner entitled?

Findings:-

Point No. I:- The Departmental Enquiry has been held legal and valid vdie order dated 9.2.2017.

Thus, Point No. I is answered accordingly.

Point No. II:- The perusal of the record goes to reveal that the Petitioner has been terminated from the

service vide order dated 11.2.2005 passed by Respondent Management on the ground of misconduct of habitual

absenteeism from the duty unauthorizedly for 511 days during the period form 7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003. Petitioner

submitted that he was issued with a charge sheet dated 31.12.2003 alleging that he has absented to his duties

unauthorizedly for about 511 days on 23 occasions during the period from 7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003 and he has

submitted his detailed explanation to the charge sheet denying the charges levelled against him as false, incorrect

and baseless and he also explained that due to his ill-health only he was compelled to absent to his duties. It is

submitted that for the alleged period of absence there was a reasonable cause and the said reasonable cause was

only ill-health. Further, the Petitioner submits that he also informed about his ill-health to his higher officials of the

respondent organization and the higher officials know about the same and considering his health condition on several

occasions his higher officials also granted leave orally. But the said period i.e., 7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003 was treated

unauthorized absenteeism by the Respondent. Petitioner submitted that the issuance of charge sheet itself is illegal,

unjust and contrary to the law, since for the alleged period of absenteeism there was for reasonable cause and the

same was considered by the higher officials working under the respondent and the said absenteeism does not

constitute any misconduct. Therefore, petitioner prayed that the entire action taken by the respondent against the him

in removing him from service basing on the illegal charge sheet itself is illegal, unjust, contrary to law and

unsustainable in the eye of law and prayed to set aside on this ground only.

On the other hand, Respondent contended that it is totally false and incorrect that the Petitioner has put in

unblemished records of service and he was removed from the service vide order dated 11.2.2005. The Petitioner had

been absented from his duties even during the probationary period after joining the service of the erstwhile Indian

Airlines on 21.11.1989 and therefore, his probationary period was extended by three months w.e.f. 21.5.1990 on

account of unsatisfactory performance and bad attendance. Respondent contended that subsequent to the confirmation

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2137

in service as a Helper in Commercial Department, the petitioner continued to remain absent unauthorizedly in the year

1991, again he he had absented for 41 days on 10 occasions and he was awarded with the punishment of Reduction “

in time scale by two stages for one year w.e.f. 1.1.1993". Respondent further contended that inspite of being

punished for absenting in the year 1991, had remained absent from duties even in the year 1992 without leave and

unauthorizedly for 84 days on 25 occasions in the year 1992, he was issued with a charge sheet and after holding a

departmental enquiry, he was issued with a show cause notice by the Commercial Manager, Southern Region,

Chennai, vide letter dated 12.8.1993 proposing to impose the punishment of “Removal from the service of the

Corporation". The petitioner had pleaded for mercy on humanitarian grounds and therefore, the proposed punishment

was changed to "Reduction in time scale by two stages with cumulative effect from 1.11.1993" . Further Respondent

contended that petitioner had been remaining absent on and off during the subsequent period also. He had again

absented from duties for 63 days on 21 occasions during the year 2000 without prior permission and intimation to the

office. The Station Manager, Hyderabad who was the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the workman had,

however, taken a lenient view and advised him to improve his attendance vide letter dated 20.10.2000 with a view to

give him an opportunity to show improvement in his attendant and performance. The petitioner had again continued

to remained absent during the subsequent period also and he had absented from duties for 42 days during the period

from 1.11.2000 to 19.3.2001. He was again advised to show improvement in his attendance but it was of no use and

the petitioner continued with his habit of absenting form duties without prior permission. It is further submitted that

the petitioner had again absented unauthorizedly for 109 days on 24 occasions during the period from May, 2001 to

March, 2002 for which he was issued with a charge sheet dt. 18.3.2002. An enquiry was held into the charges

leveled against him and the disciplinary authority had issued again a Show Cause Notice dt:.29.1.2003 proposing to

impose the punishment of "Removal from service" and the petitioner had again pleaded for mercy and sympathetic

consideration. The Disciplinary Authority had once again taken a lenient view and decided to give a final opportunity

to him, changed the proposed punishment of removal from service to a “Reduction to the post of Helper

(commercial) in the scale of Rs. 2860-3700 with basic pay at Rs. 2860/- w.e.f. 9.6.2003” vide order dated 31.5.2003.

10.

Further, Respondent contended that Petitioner had remained absent for 511 days on 23 occasions during

the period from 7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003 which had finally resulted in passing the impugned order dt. 11.2.2005 by the

General Manager (Commercial) Chennai awarding the punishment of removal from the service of the company with

immediate effect.

11.

In view of the submissions of both the parties and from the perusal of the record it is admitted fact that the

Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly from duty for 511 days during the period from 7.3.2002 to 31.10.202003.

Whatever Respondent has contended about the past habitual misconduct of absenteeism of the Petitioner in his

counter and submissions that has not been countered or controverted by the Petitioner by his pleadings or any other

evidence. Thus, the contention of the Respondent regarding habitual misconduct of absenteeism is accepted as true.

However, Petitioner has taken the plea that due to his ill-health only he was compelled to absent from his duties and

he also informed about his ill-health to the higher officials of the Respondent the higher officials knows about his

health condition on several occasions and also granted leave orally. But the said period was treated as unauthorized

absence. After conducting the enquiry in fair manner the Petitioner has been found guilty of the charge in breach of

the Indian Airlines General Employees Service Regulations which reads as follows:-

Indian Airlines (General Employees) Service Regulations:-

SR 128. SICK LEAVE: An employee shall be eligible for sick leave of 20 days on half pay which may be commuted

to 10 days on full pay for each Calendar Year. Sick leave may be accumulated upto 120 days with full pay and may

be availed of on half pay for double the period i.e., upto 240 days.

SR 131. Sick leave for a period exceeding two days shall be supported by Medical Certificate from either the

Medical officer of the Corporation or a Medical Practitioner (of Allopathic System of Medicine) duly approved by the

Corporation.

The perusal of the enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that in support of the charge sheet Management has produced

documents ME.1, ME.2 and ME.3 proved by examining Management witness. ME.1 showing muster rolls of the

Commercial Department pertaining to the charge sheeted employee for the period from 7.3.2002 to 2.2.2003 and

ME.2 showing the leave card of the charge sheeted employee for the year 2002 to 2003 which shows the blank

without any entry and ME.3 letter dated 23.12.003 showing Petitioner’s absence from duty for 511 days in 23

occasions. The Documents pertaining to charge sheeted employee would show that charge sheeted employee was

unauthorizedly absent from duty without prior sanction of leave for 511 days on 23 occasions during the period from

7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003. Further, it would show that charge sheeted employee has availed the leaves as remaining

absent without prior sanction / intimation and approval from authority during the year 2002-2003, he did not apply

to authority to regularize his absence from duty for said period. ME.2 leave card is totally blank. ME.3 is the

absenteeism report of charge sheeted employee in which reveals that on number of occasions charge sheeted

employee remained absent from duty in total for 511 days on 23 occasions during the period in question. The

service regulation of general employees of Indian Airlines do not permit oral leave sanctions. As per regulations

2138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

more than two days sick leave, application should be supported by Medical certificate from either Medical Officer of

corporation or Medical Practitioner of allopathic system approved by corporation. But the Petitioner has not

submitted any medical certificate as per regulations of service. The documents submitted by the charge sheeted

employee during the enquiry are prescriptions of his illness from private Doctors. It does not specifies whether the

medical practitioner who has issued this prescription is approved by the Corporation or not as per rule. Therefore,

the Petitioner do not find support from these documents. However, during the enquiry, the Petitioner has deposed

that because of his frequent sickness he could not apply for leave and further, Petitioner admits that, he has gone

through the absenteeism report and confirm the same. Further, charge sheeted employee has submitted that, “Due to

incomplete medication i.e., CPAP machine (Oxygen producing machine) which was supplied by Dy. GM (Medical)

that is the reason I could not attend my duty regularly.” Thus, from the above statement of the charge sheeted

employee, in the enquiry he himself admitted fact that he was absent for 511 days during the period in question as

stated in the charge sheet and he did not apply for leave during the absenteeism period of 511 days as per service

regulations.

12.

Thus, it is established that Petitioner has not submitted any medical certificate from Medical Officer of the

Corporation or medical practitioner duly approved by the Corporation as per regulation. Further, it is established

that the Petitioner remained absent from duty for 511 days during the period 7.3.2002 to 31.10.2003 and he did not

get regularize his absenteeism by moving any leave application before the competent authority as per regulation of

general employee of corporation. Thus, the plea off the Petitioner that due to illness he could not attend the duty is

not acceptable.

13.

As regards the disproportionment of punishment of removal of Petitioner for misconduct of absenteeism

from duty, the Petitioner had been habitual of remaining absent from duty in past on number of occasions since his

probationary period after joining the service. He was advised and given ample opportunity number of times to

improve his attendance on duty, but he did not pay heed to the advise of the Respondent Management and habitually

continued to commit the misconduct of absenteeism from duty. Thus, keeping in view chronic behaviour of

absenteeism and habitual conduct of the Petitioner, the Respondent was left with no option except to pass removal

order of the Petitioner from service.

Here I would like to make reference of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of habitual conduct of

absenteeism from duty of the employee as the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that such habitual misconduct of

absenteeism from duty is a grave misconduct and punishment of removal of the employee from service in such

matter is appropriate punishment.

In State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, the Apex Court have held:-

“Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions,

we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a

grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with

the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when

the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is

made out.”

In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 Apex Court have

held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a

fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service

of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a

long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained

absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were

seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it

cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated lightly.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:

"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence,

more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence

and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing Orders shows

the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior permission. Only

exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance of which renders

the absence unauthorised."

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

have held:-

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2139

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

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

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

In Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil Appeal 5762-5763 of 2009 decided

on 24.08.2009, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test of proportionality of punishment and held:-

“One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable

employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take

into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude

irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”

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

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

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

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

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

conduct of Petitioner remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly for 511 days during the period from 7.3.2002 to

31.10.2003 is nothing but a grave and serious misconduct which is not excusable or pardonable and that can not be

said as shocking to conscience and thus, not disproportionate to the gravity of Petitioner’s conduct. Therefore, I am

of the considered opinion that there is no occasion to interfere in the finding of Disciplinary Authority of removal

order of the Petitioner from service.

14.

Further, the Petitioner has taken the plea that ever since from the date of removal, he remained unemployed

and could not secure any alternative employment inspite of his best and honest efforts and he is the only earning

member of his family and due to his removal his entire family has been suffering for no fault. In this regard

Respondent has contended that the plea of the Petitioner can not be considered in a positive manner as the Petitioner

was a chronic absentee during the entire period of his service ever since he has joined the Respondent organization

i.e., from 21.11.1989. He has not shown any improvement inspite of being awarded punishments, hence it is found

that there was no scope of re-consideration in the case of Petitioner and hence the impugned order was passed by

the Respondent organization. Further, Respondent submits that the imposition of the punishment on the Petitioner

vide impugned order No. MAA/GMC/ADMN/1032 dated 11.2.2005, the same was placed before the National

Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai vide application No.NTB-08 of 2005 under Sec.33(2)(b) of I.D. Act, 1947 and the

Hon’ble Tribunal have held the proceedings in the above case and the Petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal

and filed his written submissions against the application filed by the Respondent Corporation. Hon’ble National

Industrial Tribunal after having considered the petition filed by the Respondent Corporation and also the written

submissions and oral representations made by the Petitioner, had passed order on 2.5.2006 granting approval for the

action taken by the Respondent Company in passing removal order dated 11.2.2005. However, in view of the above,

the plea of the Petitioner against the imposition of the punishment of removal is not tenable. Further, the imposition

of the punishment of removal of Petitioner from service can not be said to be shocking to one’s conscious as it can

not be said that the imposition of the order was perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, in view of the fore gone

discussion and facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed

above, I am of the view that the action of the Respondent in removing the Petitioner from service is justified.

Thus, Point No. II is answered accordingly.

15.

Point No. III: In view of the fore gone discussion and finding given at Points No. I & II, the Workman is

not entitled to get any relief, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion and finding as above, it is held that the action of the Management of

Indian Airlines Limited, Southern Region in removing the Petitioner Sri V. Ravinder Kumar, Helper(Commercial)

from service is justified. Hence, Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Petition is dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

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

the 14^th day of February, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

2140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024

का.आ. 973.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

–

सि

–

Je U;k;ky;] िैिराबाि ds iapkV (पिचान

la[;k 120 /2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-11012/28/2015-आईआर (सी.एम-I)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024

S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 120/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

Air India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/05/2024.

[No. L-11012/28/2015– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 27^th day of March, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 120/2015

Between:

Sri M. Shiv Kumar,

S/o Late Sir M. Swamy,

H.No. 15/A, Vijayanagar Colony, Picket,

Secunderabad – 500 028.

..….Petitioner

AND

The CMD,

Air India Ltd., Airlines House,

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi- 110 001.

The Dy. General Manager (Pers)

Air India Ltd., Engineering Complex,

Begumpet,

Hyderabad -500 016.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2141

The Regional Director,

Air India Ltd.,

Chennai.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. A. Nagendra Rao, S. Dev Raj & K. Naga Raju Rao, Advocates

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-11012/28/2015-IR(CM-I) dated 2.11.2015

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

the management of Air India Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd., Hyderabad in not regularizing the services of Sri

M. Shiv Kumar S/o Late Sri M. Swamy in the post of Helper (Canteen) is justified? To what relief is the

workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 120/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned

and Petitioner filed claim statement.

Respondent set ex-parte as no counter filed after giving several opportunities.

After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him,

the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has

not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 27^th day

of March, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 974.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेजडकल एिुकेिन एंड ररसचा (पीिीआईएमईआर) छाबड़ा एंड कंपनी 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; नंबर 1]

चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 49 /2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-20013/01/2024-आईआर (सी.एम-I)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

2142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Medical Eduction & Research(PGIMER) Chhabbra & Company and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-20013/01/2024– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 49/2018

Registered on:- 29.05.2018

Sh. Mehar Singh, S/o Sh. Hardayal Singh, H.No. 321, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

…….Workman

VERSUS

1. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER) Sector 12, Chandigarh.

2. M/s Chabbra & Company, C/o Shop No. 21-22, Vill. Badheri, Sector 41, Chandigarh.

..….Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-24.04.2024

The workman Mehar Singh has directly filed statement of claim under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with full back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for cross-examination of

workman. The AR of workman made a statement that he may be allowed to withdraw the present case as the

workman Mehar Singh has died about four years back according to his information, which is recorded separately.

Since there is no application moved by the LRs of the deceased-workman therefore, there is no need to

proceed with the case further. Hence, the present case is dismissed for the non-prosecution by the LRs of the

deceased-workman. File after completion be consigned to the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 975.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 65 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/9/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/9/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2143

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 65/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Balwan Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal

(Haryana), Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana).

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/9/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 25.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex, District

Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Balwan Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh,

Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

2. Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 976.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 64 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/8/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/8/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 64/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Mahinder Singh S/o Sh. Phoola Ram, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram

Nagar, Karnal (Haryana), Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana).

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/8/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 25.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Mahinder Singh

S/o Sh. Phoola Ram, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID

Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 977.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 67 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/11/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/11/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2145

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 67/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal

(Haryana), Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/11/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 27.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Krishan Kumar S/o

Sh. Jagdish Chand, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 978.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 62 /2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/6/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/6/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 62/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Desh Raj, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana), Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/6/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 25.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex, District

Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Raj Kumar S/o Shri Desh Raj, Ex-

Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 979.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 72 /2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/16/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/16/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2147

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 72/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Desh Raj, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana),

Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/16/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 27.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Rajesh Kumar

S/o Sh. Desh Raj, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 980.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 71 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/15/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 71/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/15/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 71/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Rajeev Kumar S/o Sh. Duliya Ram, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana),

Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/15/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 28.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Rajeev Kumar S/o Sh.

Duliya Ram, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 981.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 70 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/14/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/14/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2149

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 70/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Pala Ram, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana),

Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/14/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 28.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Sanjeev Kumar

S/o Sh. Pala Ram, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 982.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69 /2014) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/13/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/13/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 69/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Singh, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana),

Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/13/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 28.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Sanjay Kumar

S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 983.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 68 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/12/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 68/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/12/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2151

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 68/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Dharam Pal S/o Sh. Karesan Lal, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana),

Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/12/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 27.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Dharam Pal S/o Sh.

Karesan Lal, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 984.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 66 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/10/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/10/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 25, 2024/JAISHTHA 4, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 66/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Sultan Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana),

Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/10/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 25.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Sultan Singh S/o Sh.

Surjan Singh, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 मई, 2024

का.आ. 985.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम 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; नंबर 1] चंडीगढ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 63 /2014) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@05@2024 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22011/7/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2024

S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12/05/2024.

[No. L-22011/7/2014– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : मई 25, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 4, 1946

2153

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No. 63/2014

Registered On: 21/04/2014

Sh. Balkar S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, C/o Sh. Diwakar Modi, Advocate, 38/13-14, Ram Nagar, Karnal (Haryana), Karnal.

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

Versus

The Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chattha Complex, District office, Pipli, Kurukshetra

(Haryana), Kurukshetra.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 25.04.2024

Central Government vide Notification No. L-22011/7/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated 25.03.2014, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatta Complex,

District Office, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Haryana) in termination of services of Shri Balkar S/o Shri

Mangat Ram, Ex-Workman w.e.f. 30.05.2012 is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but

none is responding on behalf of workman since long i.e. from 14.05.2019.

Perused the file and it is found that the Several opportunities have already been given to the workman to file

the evidence of workman but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the

matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no

claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in

the record room.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

SARVESH KUMAR

SRIVASTAVA

Digitally signed by SARVESH

KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Date: 2024.06.12 14:52:07 +05'30'