3095 GI/2024

(2155)

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. 21]

नई दिल् ली, मई 26—िून 1, 2024, िजनवार/ ज् येष् ठ 5 —ज् येष् ठ 11, 1946

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, MAY 26—JUNE 1, 2024, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 5– JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् ठ सं्‍ या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् 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)

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई, 2024

का.आ. 986.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k es vkSj isVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl eU=ky;] Hkkjr

ljdkj ds dk-vk- 3846¼v½ fnukad 21 vDVwcj 2019 dh vf/klwpuk ds la”kks/ku es mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRrj izns'k

jkT; ds Hkhrj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh chuk¼e0iz0½&iudh ¼dkuiqj m0iz0½ ikbiykbu ds l{ke izkf/kdkjh

ds nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu djus ds fy, lqJh fjadh tk;loky] vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼Hkw0v0½ dkuiqj uxj ¼mRrj izns'k½ dks

Jh lksguyky fMIVh dysDVj ftyk cgjkbp ds LFkku ij vfrfjDr izHkkj es l{ke izkf/kdkjhs] izkf/kÑr djrh gSA

;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[फा. सं. आर-11025(15)/3/2019-ओआर-1/ई-29921]

ih-lksekdqekj, voj lfpo

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12062024-254662

CG-DL-W-12062024-254662

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12062024-254662

CG-DL-W-12062024-254662

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-12062024-254662

CG-DL-W-12062024-254662

2156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2024

S.O. 986.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes Ms. Rinki Jaiswal,

Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Kanpur Uttar Pradesh, to perform the functions of Competent

Authority on additional charge, in place of existing Competent Authority Shri Sohan Lal notified vide Gazette of

India Gas S.O. No. 3846(E) dated 21.10.2019 in the state of Uttar Pradesh for Bina (M.P.) – Panki (Kanpur U.P.)

Pipeline of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited under the said act..

This notification is applicable from the date of issuance.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-1/E-29921]

P. SOMAKUMAR, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रजल, 2024

का.आ. 987.—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

-

सि

-

] िजिराबाि

ds iapkV (

ओर एलसी

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

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-11012/28/2014-आई.आर.सी.(एम-I)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th April, 2024

S.O. 987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 224/2014 & LC 12/2014) 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 21/03/2024.

[No. L-11012/28/2014 – 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 20^th day of February, 2024

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 224/2014 & LC 12/2014

Between:

Sri Chand Qureshi,

S/o Late Sri Pasha Chowdary,

H.No.16-9-38/1A, Padamanagar,

Old Malakpet,

Hyderabad.

..….Petitioner

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2157

AND

The Chairman and Managing Director,

Air India Ltd.,

Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

New Delhi – 110 001.

The Regional Director,

Air India Ltd.,

Chennai.

The Deputy General Manager (Personnel)

Air India Ltd.,

Engineering Complex, Begumpet,

Hyderabad – 500016.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Nagendra Rao & S. Dev Raj, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. V. Uma Devi & N. Srinivas, Advocates

COMMON AWARD

Petitioner Sri Chand Qureshi, S/o Late Sri Pasha Chowdary, has filed application u/s 2A(2) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 before this Labour Court which was numbered as LC 12/2014. Later, reference was received from

Government of India, Ministry of Labour bearing No.L-11012/28/2014-IR(CM-I) dated 7.10.2014 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 in not regularizing the services of Sri Chand Qureshi S/o Late Sri

Pasha Chowdary, in the post of Typist is justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 224/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned and

the Petitioner entered appearance. Since the cause of action and parties to the dispute as well as prayer involved in

both the cases cited above are one and the same, both the cases were clubbed vide order dated 31.1.2017 (Passed in

LC11/2014) and disposed off vide common award.

Petitioner absent on the date fixed for Petitioner evidence. Record shows that the case is posted for

Petitioner’s evidence since July, 2023 and no evidence is adduced by the Petitioner till date. In view of absence of the

Petitioner and non-production of evidence, to substantiate his claim, case is dismissed for default and a ‘No Claim’

award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected by me on this the 20^th day of

February, 2024.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

2158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2024

का.आ. 988.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

आर. के. माबबल प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री ओमप्रकाि प्रिाृत के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िबष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ियृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-02/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक

में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज, िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आई.आर.सी.(एम)-54]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th May, 2024

S.O. 988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 02/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

R.K. Marble Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Omprakash Prajapat which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 07.05.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M) -54]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh

Jh vkseizdk'k iztkir iq= Jh jsoM+ ey dqEgkj] fuoklh dqEgkjksa dk eksgYyk] /kqyk jksth] /kksyk ftyk t;iqj] ¼jkt-½A

-------izkFkhZ

1- Mk;jsDVj] vkj- ds- ekcZy] izk- fy- edjkuk jksM+] enuxat fd'kux< ftyk vtesj ¼jkt-½A

2- ekbZUl eSustj] vkj- ds- ekcZy] izk- fy-] eksjoM xkao ds ikl ftyk jktlean ¼jkt-½A

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

mifLFkr%&

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

% Jh Hkokuh flag HkkVh] vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.kA

2 A

1- izkFkhZ vkseizdk'k iztkir }kjk fnukad 16-02-2021 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ¼lalksf/kr 2010½ dh /kkjk 2A ds

vUrxZr nkos dk vfHkdFkku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr 22-09-1997 dks gkWyekdZj ds in

ij foi{khx.k ds v/kkhu gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ us 01-08-2017 dks LosfPNd lsok fuo`fRr ;kstuk ds vUrxZr LosfPNd lsok fuo`fRr

gsrq ,d vkosnu fn;kA ftls foi{khx.k us 23-08-2017 dks vLohdkj dj fn;kA blds ckn 21-07-2020 dks tc izkFkhZ dk;Z

ij vk;k rks mls dk;Z ij u ysrs gq;s mls lsokeqDr dj fn;k vkSj 21-07-2020 ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk >wBk vkjksi yxk;kA

lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu foi{khx.k }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA vr% 21-07-2020 dks dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh

lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s leLr ifjykHkksa lfgr izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fcgky fd;k tkosaA

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2159

2- foi{khx.k us nkos ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj djrs gq;s ;s dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dk VRS vkosnu lfefr }kjk vLohdkj

dj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk 21-07-2020 ls og fujUrj vuqifLFkr jgkA izkFkhZ dks uksfVl Hkh fn;s x;s ysfdu mlus

dk;Z ugha laHkkykA izkFkhZ dks foi{khx.k us lsokeqDr gh ugha fd;k blfy;s vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gh ugha gksrs

gSA vr% okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosaA

3- vkt fnukad 25-01-2024 dks izkFkhZ o foi{khx.k us ,d la;qDr le>kSrk i= vf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd;kA bl

le>ksrs ds vuqlkj foi{khx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dks 451]000@& :- ¼ v{kjs pkj yk[k bD;kou gtkj :Ik;s½ dk Hkqxrku

fofHkUu enksa esa pSd la- ß224531Þ fnukad 20-01-2024 IDBI cSad] 'kk[kk& jktlean] ds ek/;e ls fd;k x;kA

mHk;i{k us ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dk dksbZ lsok laca/kh nkok@ fookn vc 'ks"k ugha gSA bl le>ksrs dks lR;kfir

djrs gq; 451]000@& :- ¼v{kjs pkj yk[k bD;kou gtkj :Ik;s½ dk pSd izkFkhZ dks fn;k x;kA

4- bl fLFkfr esa mHk;i{k ds e/; le>ksrs ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gSA vr% ;g vf/kfu.kZ; mHk;i{k

ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k u jgus ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA mHk;i{k ds chp lEiUu le>ksrs dk izi=

vf/kfu.kZ; dk Hkkx jgsxkA

5- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosaA

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

lsokesa]

U;k;ky; dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; jktLFkku] t;iqj A

vkse izdk'k iztkir cuke egkizcU/kd] vkj-ds-ekcZy izk- fy-] eksjoM+ ekbZUl ----------izkFkhZ

-------foi{kh

la {ksi esa rF;& izkFkhZ us viuh lsok eqfDr fnukad 20-07-2020 ds fo:) ekuuh; dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; jktLFkku] t;iqj esa mDr dsl izLrqr fd;k] ftlds

vuqlkj foi{kh ds izi= dzekad vkj-ds-,e-@,p-vkj-@oh-vkj-,l-@2017@830 fnukad 01-08-2017

ds rgr LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fRRk ;kstuk tkjh dh Fkh rFkk bl ;kstuk ds rgr izkFkhZ us Hkh bl

;kstuk dk ykHk ysus ds fy, LoSfPNd lsokfuo`fRRk dk izkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k Fkk ijUrq izcU/ku }kjk

xfBr lfefr us fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds izkFkhZ dk oh-vkj-,l- izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt@vLohdkj dj fn;k

o izkFkhZ dks oh-vkj-,l- ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 20-07-2020 ls lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;kA

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tckc is'k dj dFku fd;k fd izkFkhZ dks oh-vkj-,l- ugha fn;kA bl dkj.k

izkFkhZ viuh euethZ ls vuqifLFkr py jgk gSA og viuh euethZ ls dk;Z ij ugha vk jgk gSA mls

lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;kA le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k Hkh mls M ;wVh ds fy, vkWQj fn;k FkkA

vkt nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek@ le>kSrk fuEu 'krksZa ds vuqlkj

lEiUu gqvk ftlls nksuksa i{k ikcUn jgsaxs %&

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fnukad 22-09-1997 ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnukad 20-07-2020 rd dk izfro"kZ

dh lsok vof/k ds vk/kkj (per Completed Years of Service) ij dqy lsok vof/k 22 o"kZ 10 ekg

02 fnu dks 23 o"kZ ekurs gq, izkFkhZ dks feyus okys ekfld vafre osru Hkqxrku :i;s 20]360 :i;s

v{kjs chl gtkj rhu lkS lkB :i;s ek= ds vk/kkj ij 15 fnu izfro"kZ dh nj ls (A) ,Dlxzsfl;k

Hkqxrku :i;s 2]24]130 (v{kjs nks yk[k pkSarhl gtkj ,d lkS pkyhl :i;s ek= )] (B) vodk'k

udnhdj.k Hkqxrku (10 fnu ih-,y-,oa 5 fnu lh-,y- dqy 15 fnu) :i;s 10]180 (v{kjs nl gtkj

,d lkS vLlh :i;s ek=)] (C) xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku ewy osru :i;s 12]220 (v{kjs ckjg gtkj nkS

lkS chl :i;s ek=) dh nj ls :i;s 1]62]150 (v{kjs ,d yk[k cklB gtkj ,d lkS ipkl :i;s

ek=) ,oa (D)vU; Hkqxrku :i;s 44]530 v{kjs pokyhl gtkj ikap lkS rhl :i;s ek= ) ftldk

dqy Hkqxrku :i;s 4]51]000 (pkj yk[k bD;kou gtkj :i;s ek=) nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; gq, mDr

le>kSrk ds vuqlkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ Jh vkse izdk'k iztkir dks vkbZ -

Mh-ch-vkbZ- cSad] 'kk[kk jktleUn jkt- dk pSd la[;k 224531 fnukad 20-01-2024 jkf'k 4]51]000

(v{kjs pkj yk[k bD;kou gtkj :i;s ek=) dk pSd Hkqxrku gsrq izLrqr gSA

mDr en jkf'k ds vykok vc izkFkhZ dk lsok lEcfU/k dksbZ Dyse fdlh izdkj dk 'ks"k ugha gS] uk

gh dksbZ fdlh izdkj dh jkf'k cdk;k gSA uk gh dksbZ vU; fookn 'ks"k gS] vFkkZr lHkh izdkj ds

2160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fookn lekIr le>s tk;saxsA rFkk nksuksa i{k ;g le>kSrk U;k;ky; esa is'k dj mDr vk'k; dk uks

fMLI;wV vokMZ ikfjr djk ldsaxsA

fnukad 25-01-2024

g- izkFkhZ

g- foi{kh

(vkse izdk'k iztkir)

(vpy flag jkBkSM+)

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 989.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभब सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 989.—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. 34/2023) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22013/01/2024– 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 2023

PARTIES:

Dharmendra Harijan.

Vs.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Jamaluddin Mia, General Secretary, RMBKS.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Management representative.

INDUSTRY:

ECL

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

16.02.2024

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 Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No.1(20)/2023/E dated 26.06.2023 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Khas 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 Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area, M/s. E C Ltd in changing the

surname of Sri Dharmendra Harijan to Dharmendra Gautam in the service record is justified or not? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No.1(20)/2023/E dated 26.06.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2161

Reference case No. 34 of 2023 was registered on 04.07.2023 and an order was passed for issuing Notice to the parties

through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in

support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

Mr. Jamaluddin Mia, General Secretary of Rastriya Mulnivasi Bahujan Karmchari Sangh has appeared along

with Dharmendra Harijan. Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, the Management representative has appeared for Eastern Coalfields

Limited. The case is fixed up today for taking steps and hearing on the point of maintainability of the Industrial

Dispute. An affidavit has been filed by Dharmendra Harijan. On a perusal of the same, it appears that the dispute

involved in the reference is regarding claim of the workman for change of surname. It is submitted by the union

that Dharmendra Harijan wanted to change his surname from Harijan to Goutam but the same is not being recorded.

The Schedule of the Dispute to the contrary has raised the question as to whether the action of the management of

Khas Kajora Colliery in changing the surname of Dharmendra Harijan to Dharmendra Gautam in service record is

justified or not. It appears from the language of the schedule as if surname of the person concerned has already been

changed from Harijan to Gautam and this Tribunal has to decide whether such change of name is legal and justified.

Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, management representative of Khas Kajora Colliery submitted that it is a demand of the

workman that his surname should be changed from Harijan to Gautam and not that his surname has already been

changed. I find that the grievance of the workman is against inaction of the management and it is not an Industrial

Dispute. Certain procedure has to be followed for change in one’s name.

Having considered all aspects, it appears to me that the Schedule framed is not consistent with the dispute

raised by the workman and it does not reflect the actual dispute between the employer and employee. Under such

circumstances the Reference case is dismissed as misconceived. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up in light of my

above observations.

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

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 990.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभब सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 990.—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. 02/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22013/01/2024– 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.

L. C. APPLICATION NO. 02 OF 2020

PARTIES:

Ranjit Banerjee

Vs.

Dy. General Manager (E&M)/Agent of

Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works, ECL and 3 Others.

2162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Ranjit Banerjee (in person).

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

DATED:

05.03.2024

AWARD

1. Mr. Ranjit Banerjee, aggrieved workman has appeared in person. The Deputy General Manager (E&M) of

Barakar Engineering and Foundry Works under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited is represented by Mr. P. K. Das,

learned advocate. Instant application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 33 (C) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 on 19.08.2020 seeking an order for payment of House Rent Allowance to the petitioner as per

provision of National Coal Wage Agreement for the period from 1981 to 2013.

2. The case is fixed up today for evidence of both parties, in default, the same is to be disposed of. No evidence

is adduced. Heard Mr. Banerjee. It is submitted that no quarters was allotted to him during the period from 1981 to

2013 but after several representation House Rent Allowance was not paid to him according to the provision of

National Coal Wage Agreement applicable to the company and workmen. At the relevant time, Mr. Banerjee

submitted that during the said period he was residing at a Bungalow of Eastern Coalfields Limited at Neamatpur

Workshop which was lying in a bad state of repair and is still occupying the same.

3. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate raised strong objection against the prayer for recovery of House Rent

Allowance. It is submitted that Mr. Banerjee has superannuated from service and not on company’s roll from

01.04.2013. Furthermore, he has not submitted any particulars or details of the amount of his claim from the

company on account of House Rent Allowance. It is pointed out that Mr. Banerjee is occupying the quarters all

through and is still occupying the same after his superannuation. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief and the

case should be dismissed.

4. Perused the application and para-wise written objection submitted by the Agent of Barakar Engineering and

Foundry Works, Eastern Coalfields Limited. Considering the materials before the Tribunal and the submissions

made and the submission made.

I find that this application has been made after a period of seven (7) years of superannuation from service.

5. According to section 33(C) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 “ where any money is due to a workman from an

employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VB, the workman

himself or any other person authorized by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of death of the workman, his

assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate

Government for the recovery of the money due to him, ………… Provided that every such application shall be

made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer.”

I find this application has been made after a lapse of the statutory period of one year from the time the claim is

allegedly due and no reason has been assigned for the delay in filing the application. It is to be borne in mind that

the petitioner is occupying a public premises without any official approval and he needs to vacate the same instead

of claiming House Rent Allowance. Facts and circumstances of this case prompts me to hold that there is nothing

on record which would help in computing any amount payable to the petitioner as House Rent Allowance. In other

words, petitioner is not found entitled to get House Rent Allowance and his application under section 33 (C) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands dismissed on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

Let an Award be passed in view of the above discussion. Copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the

Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi under section 33 C (4) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for information

and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 991.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभब सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/48/93-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2163

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference. I.D. No. 27/1993) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22012/48/93– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 27 OF 1993

PARTIES:

Smt. Malati Mejhain

Vs.

Management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

None

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.03.2024.

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-22012/48/93-IR(C.II) dated 07.06.1993 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery under Sripur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Kalipahari (R) Colliery of M/s. E.C.Ltd. in dismissing Smt. Malati

Mejhain, Wagon Loader w.e.f. 28.10.88 from the services vide charge sheet No. KGT/KPH/87/1137 dated

15.07.84 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/48/93-IR(C.II) dated 07.06.1993 from the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 27 of 1993 was registered on 14.06.1993

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

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL is present. The case is fixed up today for appearance of Smt. Malati

Mejhian and hearing of case, in default, for its disposal in accordance with law. On a perusal of record, I find that in

compliance with order dated 22.12.2023 Notice was issued to Malati Mejhian at her residential address under

registered post. On repeated calls at 1.50 p.m. none appeared for the aggrieved employee.

Written statements were submitted by Malati Mejhian on 16.11.1993 and on behalf of the employer on

17.12.1993. Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative had adduced evidence and was examined as workman witness - 1

for union on 03.04.1997, stating therein that Malati Mejhain was dismissed from service since 28.10.1988 but order of

dismissal was not served on her. Furthermore, Charge Sheet was not served on her and no Notice of enquiry was

issued. Witness also denied that Malti Mejhian was continuously absent from the year 1986 onwards, till the year

1987. Witness has not been cross-examined on behalf of the management. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the

management. Case is pending for three decades and no step has been taken on behalf of the union.

2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Considering the materials on record it is apparent that allegation of illegal dismissal has not been

controverted by the management by cross-examining WW-1 or adducing evidence. However, as Malati Mejhain and

the union have not taken steps, I am not inclined to pass any order on merit of this case and hold that the Industrial

Dispute stands dismissed for non-prosecution and the same is disposed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 992.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सि

–

] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभब सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/30/2022-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 992.—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. 09/2022) of the Central Government Industrial

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

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

[No. L-22012/30/2022– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 09 OF 2022

PARTIES:

Mina Devi

(widow of Late Sitaram Singh)

Vs.

Management of Ratibati (R) Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

15.03.2024.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2165

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-22012/30/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 11.04.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Ratibati (R) Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Union i.e. Koyala Mazdoor Congress for payment of monetary compensation from

October, 1995 to February, 1997 to Smt. Mina Devi, Wife of Late Sitaram Singh, Ex-Pump Khalasi on the

basis of management letter No. SAT/GM/PER/Empl/4090/97/666 dated 17/18.1.1997 issued by G.N.Singh,

Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Satgram Area of M/s. ECL is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief Smt.

Mina Devi, Wife of Late Sitaram Singh is entitled and what direction are necessary in this regard?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/30/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 11.04.2022 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 09 of 2022 was registered on

13.04.2022 / 01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing

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

of witnesses.

Union representative for the dependent of the deceased employee filed written statement on 07.11.2022. The

management of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) contested the case by filing written

statement on 25.01.2023. Brief fact of the case according to the written statement of the union is that Sitaram Singh,

was posted at Chapui Khas Colliery of ECL as Pump Khalasi. He died on 12.09.1995 leaving behind Mina Devi, as

widow and Yogendra Singh, his son who was less than 18 years of age at the relevant time. The proposal for

employment of dependent wife was considered by the Screening Committee at the Colliery level and it was informed

that the wife could not be provided any employment as per National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as

NCWA). An order was passed for payment of monetary compensation to Mina Devi and providing employment to the

dependent son after he attained 18 years. When Yogendra Singh attained the age of 18 years management did not

provide employment to the son nor did they pay monetary compensation to Mina Devi from the date of death of the

employee. The employer company paid monetary compensation to Mina Devi from March, 1997 to 04.1.1999 and

stopped the payment thereafter. On the basis of order of the Hon’ble High Court management provided employment

to the dependent son on 20.03.2015 but no further monetary compensation was paid to the wife in terms of NCWA –

V. Mina Devi requested the management to pay monetary compensation to her till employment was provided to her

son.

Management of ECL in their written statement stated that Mina Devi claimed for employment on

11.03.1996, after the death of her husband. However, the Area Office did not agree to provide employment to her as

she had an eligible son, Yogendra Singh, who would be entitled to employment after attaining the age of 18 years.

Further case of ECL was that Mina Devi received monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance

allowance as per Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of NCWA – V till her son attained the age of 18 years. The same was

communicated to her with advice to submit bank details and she had been paid Rs. 2000/- per month till her son was

18 years of age i.e. on 04.1.1999. It was averred in their written statement that monetary compensation was paid to

Mina Devi for the period from March, 1997 to 04.01.1999, according to the norms of the company and order of

competent authority. It is asserted that the action of the management is justified in denying the employment of Mina

Devi and she was not entitled to any relief or reliefs from the Tribunal and the case was fit to be dismissed.

After exchange of copies of written statement between parties the case was fixed up for evidence. Mina

Devi, widow of Late Sitaram Singh filed an affidavit-in-chief and she faced the cross-examination on 12.04.2023. The

union has produced four documents in support of their case as follows :

(i) Photocopy of the death Certificate of Late Sitaram Singh has been marked as Exhibit W-1;

(ii) Photocopy of the letter dated 17/18.01.1997 issued by Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of Satgram Area

addressed to the Agent of Ratibati (R) Colliery, as Exhibit W-2;

(iii) Photocopy of the letter dated 27.06.2013 issued by the Assistant Manager (Personnel) of Chapuikhas

Colliery to the Chief Manager (Personnel) of Satgram Area, informing that monetary compensation has been

paid to the dependent from March 1997 to 04.01.1999, as Exhibit W-3; and

(iv) Photocopy of the letter of appointment of Yogendra Singh dated 09/12.03.2015, as Exhibit W-4.

In cross-examination the witness denied the suggestion that she was not entitled to monetary compensation

due to her husband’s premature death. She admitted that monetary compensation was paid to her by the management

for a certain period but claimed that it was not according to the provision of NCWA.

2166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The management of ECL examined Mr. Kalyan Roy, Deputy Manager (Personnel) as Management

witness -1. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Sitaram Singh, ex-Pump Operator of Chapuikhas

Colliery expired on 12.09.1995 while he was in service. His widow claimed for employment in place of her husband

but she was advised to accept monetary compensation and wait for employment of her son. After attaining the age of

18 years, Yogendra Singh, son of the deceased employee was provided employment. The son attained 18 years of age

on 04.01.1999 and Mina Devi was paid monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month from March 1997 to

04.01.1999 according to the rules applicable and order of the competent authority. It is further contended in the

affidavit-in-chief that Mina Devi was not entitled to any monetary compensation after 04.01.1999 till the date of

employment of Yogendra Singh. Management produced four documents in support of their case as follows :

(i)

Photocopy of the letter of appointment of Yogendra Singh dated 09/12.03.2015 has been marked as Exhibit

M-1;

(ii)

Photocopy of the Office Order dated 20.03.2015 issued to Yogendra Singh for his joining in service, as

Exhibit M-2;

(iii) Photocopy of the application submitted by Mina Devi for monetary compensation from August 1998 to

January 1999, as Exhibit M-3; and

(iv) Photocopy of the letter dated 27.09.2013 issued by the Assistant Manager (Personnel), Chapuikhas Colliery

addressed to the Chief Manager (Personnel), Satgram Area, disclosing that monetary compensation to the

dependent of Late Sitaram Singh has been paid from March 1997 to 04.01.1999, as Exhibit M-4.

In cross-examination management witness – 1 deposed that monetary compensation was paid to the widow

of deceased from 03/1997 to 04.01.1999 i.e. till her son attained 18 years of age. It was admitted by the witness that

no monetary compensation was paid to the dependent from the date of death to February 1997. The witness could not

state the reason for delay of sixteen years in providing employment to the dependent son after he attaining majority.

The witness denied the suggestion put to him that the female dependent of deceased employee was entitled to

monetary compensation so long the dependent son was not provided employment even after attaining majority.

The short question which has arisen for consideration is whether the female dependent of deceased workman

is entitled to monetary compensation from the date of death of the employee till providing employment to the

dependent.

Admittedly, Sitaram Singh died on 12.09.1995 and it finds support from Exhibit W-1, the Death Certificate.

At the relevant time Yogendra Singh, the son of Late Sitaram Singh was a minor and his name was kept on the live

roster for providing employment when he attained the age of 18 years. It is undisputed that monetary compensation

was paid to Mina Devi from 03/1997 till 04.01.1999 on the ground that the son attained majority on 04.01.1999.

Letter dated 27.06.2013 (Ext. W-3 and M-4) bears testimony to the facts of payment of monetary compensation for a

short period. Mina Devi, in her evidence claimed monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband till

February 1997 and from 05.01.1999 to 20.03.2015, the date of appointment of her son.

10.

Reverting back to the provision of Paragraph (iii) of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA – V regarding payment of

monetary compensation, it lays down as follows

“In case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medial unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no

employment has been offered and the male dependant of the concerned worker is 15 years and above in age he will be

kept on a live roster and would be provided employment commensurate with his skill and qualifications when he

attains the age of 18 years. During the period the male dependant is on live roster the female dependant will be paid

monetary compensation as per rates at paras (i) & (ii) above.”

Paragraph (iv) of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA – V provides that :

“ Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years.”

11.

Sitaram Singh died at the Central Hospital, Kalla, Asansol. There is no material on record nor has any

claim been raised that the workman died due to any accident in the mine. Therefore, ordinarily in case of death in

harness the female dependent is entitled to monetary compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the date

of death of the employee till the male dependent kept in the live roster for providing employment or till the female

dependent attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. In the present case the management of the company

instead of providing employment to the dependent widow, issued a letter dated 17/18.01.1997 (Ext. W-2) whereby the

Agent of Ratibati (R) Colliery was informed that the ex-workman had a son named Yogendra Singh, age 15 to 17

years as on 04.01.1997 and after Yogendra Singh attained 18 years he would be entitled to get employment in place of

his deceased father and Mina Devi would get Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance allowance till her son attains the

age of 18 years, as per NCWA – V. There is no qualm regarding non providing employment to Mina Devi. The

management in the written statement unnecessarily dealt with the claim for employment of Mina Devi though, it has

not been referred in the Schedule for adjudication. Yogendra Singh the son of Late Sitaram Singh has been provided

with employment under the company on the basis of letter dated 20.03.2015 as a Time Rated Trainee (Underground).

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2167

No reason has been assigned for the inordinate delay on the part of employer company in complying the provisions of

NCWA – V after the dependent son attained majority on 04.01.1999. I am of the view that once the name of the

dependent son was kept in the live roster, he is said to be in the live roster till employment is provided or finally

refused. It cannot be said that the female dependent is entitled to monetary compensation until the male dependent

attains the age of 18 years, without any employment been provided to him. Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA – V incorporates

a specific precondition to be fulfilled before stopping monetary compensation, that is, providing of employment to the

male dependent. Paragraph (iv) of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA – V casts aside the ambiguity by clearly laying down that:

“Monetary compensation, wherever applicable, would be paid till the female dependant attains the age of 60 years.”

12.

In the present case Mina Devi disclosed her age was sixty years as on 12.04.2023. Under such circumstance I

find and hold that the female dependent of the deceased employee is entitled to monetary compensation not only from

March 1997 till 04.01.1999 but the management is duty bound under NCWA – V to pay monetary compensation to

the female dependent, the widow, from the date of death of the employee i.e. 12.09.1995 till the date of employment

of Yogendra Singh under ECL on 20.03.2015. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly decided in favour of Mina Devi

and against the Management of ECL. The management of ECL is directed to assess and disburse the remaining

amount of monetary compensation within three (3) months from the date of Notification of the Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of Mina Devi. An award be drawn up in her favour

for payment of monetary compensation for the unpaid period from 12.09.1995 till February 1997 and from

05.01.1999 till the date of appointment of Yogendra Singh under ECL on 20.03.2015. The balance amount of

monetary compensation be assessed and disbursed within three (3) months from the date of Notification of the Award.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 मई, 2024

का.आ. 993.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सि

–

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभब सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/54/2011-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2024

S.O. 993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D.No. 05/2012) 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-22012/54/2011– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2012

PARTIES:

Tapas Kora

(dependent son of Late Niyati Kora)

Vs.

Management of Jambad Colliery of ECL

2168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman

Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Advocate.

For the Management of ECL

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.03.2024

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-22012/54/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 20.03.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s ECL in not providing

dependent employment to Sri Tapas Kora dependent son of Lt. Niyati Kora, Ex. Wagon Loader as per

provisions of N.C.W.A is legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/54/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 20.03.2012 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 05 of 2012 was registered on

09.04.2012 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

Written statement was filed by Tapas Kora on 23.05.2012 through Mr. Niren Chandra Das, Organizing

Secretary, Colliery Republican Mazdoor Sabha (BMM), Union. The management of Eastern Coalfields Limited

(hereinafter referred to as ECL) contested the case by filing their written statement on 03.07.2013. The fact of

the case, in brief, as disclosed by union is that Late Niyati Kora was a permanent employee at Jambad Colliery under

Kajora Area of ECL. She was appointed in the service on 21.01.1984. Initially, Niyati Kora nominated Tapas Kora

for employment under Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as FVRS) but her prayer was not

allowed as the scheme was abolished. Niyati Kora died on 01.01.1993 while she was in service of the company.

According to the provisions of Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as

NCWA) – V one of the dependent of the permanent employee is entitled to employment in place of the deceased

employee. Tapas Kora, dependent son of Late Niyati Kora submitted an application before the management of the

company for providing him with employment as a dependent of his mother. The other son and daughter filed “no

objection” in favour of Tapas Kora. It is stated that the management of ECL did not consider the application for

employment in place of his mother and also refused to pay the gratuity amount in respect of Late Niyati Kora.

Subsequently the company issued a direction for payment of gratuity amount to Tapas Kora, the son of Late Niyati

Kora. After repeated request the management intentionally and illegally denied employment to the petitioner. It is the

case of the union that Tapas Kora is still unemployed and his financial condition is bad. It is asserted that the

petitioner’s claim for employment as dependent is genuine.

In the written statement filed by the management it has been contended that the Industrial Dispute is a

belated one and raised after a lapse of 14 years. Due to such inordinate delay the Reference case is liable to be

dismissed. Further case of the management is that Late Niyati Kora, Ex-Wagon Loader, during her lifetime opted for

FVRS and nominated Tapas Kora for employment. The scheme was abolished. Once again after the death of Niyati

Kora, Tapas Kora claimed to be her son and applied for employment. On examination of the claim for employment it

was revealed that the photograph of Tapas Kora which was submitted by Late Niyati Kora did not match with

the present petitioner. It is contended that the claim for employment of Tapas Kora is fraudulent. He impersonated as

Tapas Kora either in the application submitted during lifetime of Late Niyati Kora under the FVRS or after her death

with ulterior motive to get employment by defrauding the company. They denied that the claimant’s photograph

affixed in the two applications were identical, of the same person or there was no discrepancy. It is urged that the

management of ECL is absolutely justified in not providing employment to the claimant whose identity is disputed.

In order to substantiate his claim for employment Tapas Kora examined himself as Workman Witness – 1

and filed his affidavit-in-chief. In his affidavit-in-chief he stated that Niyati Kora, Ex-Wagon Loader at Jambad

Colliery was his mother and she died on 01.01.1993 while she was on the roll of the company. During her lifetime she

had applied for employment of Tapas Kora under FVRS. The management did not process the employment proposal

of Tapas Kora on the ground that his previous photograph, submitted for employment under FVRS did not match with

the present photograph, filed after the death of Niyati Kora. It is averred that Tapas Kora received the gratuity amount

of Late Niyati Kora as directed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol. He has also filed his Voter

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2169

Identity Card, Relationship Certificate issued by the Pradhan, Death Registration Certificate of Niyati Kora, Ration

Card, Service Record Excerpt of Late Niyati Kora, Relationship Certificate with details of family members, issued by

the Pradhan and the B.D.O of Saltora Block Office, and Driving License issued by the Motor Vehicle Department,

Durgapur. It is urged that the action of management in not providing employment to him is improper. The witness

was re-examined on recall for admitting some documents in evidence. Workman Witness -1 has produced photocopy

of his Voter Identity Card as Exhibit WW-1; photocopy of his Aadhaar Card, as Exhibit WW-2; Photocopy of his

Ration Card, as Exhibit WW-3; photocopy of the Service Record Excerpt of Late Niyati Kora, as Exhibit WW-IV;

photocopy of the Death Certificate of Niyati Kora, as Exhibit WW-V, photocopy of the Screening Committee’s

Report, as Exhibit WW-VI; photocopy of the letter dated 07/15.06.2010 denying employment to the dependent son of

Late Niyati Kora, as Exhibit WW-VII; photocopy of the application nominating dependent for employment under

FVRS, as Exhibit WW-VIII; photocopy of the Relationship Certificate, as Exhibit WW-IX.

In course of cross-examination the workman witness denied that the photograph submitted by Late Niyati

Kora at the time of nominating her son for employment and the application submitted by him, bearing photograph

were of different persons. The witness stated that he has a Driving License, where his father’s name appears as Naba

Kora. It is further stated that Abhiram Kora is the husband of Late Niyati Kora. The witness deposed in his cross-

examination that his father’s name appearing in the Driving License is a printing mistake and that he is driving motor

vehicle with the same license. The witness denied that he is not Tapas Kora or that he is not the son of Late Niyati

Kora. He further denied that his father’s name is Naba Kora.

Parimal Kora, son of Late Abhiram Kora and Sulochana Mudi, married daughter of Late Abhiram Kora have

filed affidavit-in-chief in support of the claim of Tapas Kora. Sulochana Mudi has not appeared for her cross-

examination. Parimal Kora deposed as Workman Witness – 2. In his evidence-in-chief he deposed that Tapas Kora is

a driver and worked under a private agency. His brother has claimed employment under ECL as a dependent of his

mother and he has no objection if his brother gets employment under ECL. In cross-examination the witness stated

that they have one sister whose name is Sulochana Mudi. In course of cross-examination identity of Tapas Kora has

not been disputed by ECL.

Management examined two witnesses. Mr. Budhram Mandal, Assistant Manager (Personnel) of Jambad

Colliery filed an affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined in part. In his cross-examination the witness deposed that

the competent authority ordered the payment of Gratuity in favour of Tapas Kora. He also deposed that unit level

screening committee is competent to close the file relating to employment proposal. Witness further stated that when

any dispute arises regarding genuineness of identity and genuineness of relationship between the petitioner and the

ex-workman, report of three men’s Committee is held and Police Verification is sought for but in the present case no

such Police Verification was made.

Mr. Ashish Mohan, Deputy Manager (Personnel) at Jambad Colliery filed an affidavit-in-chief on

16.10.2023 and produced some documents as follows :

(i)

Photocopy of the Attestation Form in four pages has been marked as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Photocopy of the Relationship Certificate of Tapas Kora in respect of Late Niyati Kora issued by

the Pradhan and the Block Development Officer, Saltora, Bankura, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Photocopy of the Service Record Excerpt of Late Niyati Kora, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Photocopy of the Application of Tapas Kora dated 07.07.1993 for employment, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Photocopy of the Application of Tapas Kora dated 26.08.1994 submitting Attestation Form,

Relationship Certificate, No Objection Certificate, Family details Certificate, and Death Certificate

of Niyati Kora is marked as Exhibit M-5.

(vi)

Photocopy of the Report of the Screening Committee in three pages collectively, as Exhibit M-6.

In his cross-examination the witness deposed that Tapas Kora has put his signature on the Screening

Committee’s report, which is marked as Exhibit M-6/A. It may be gathered from the cross-examination that the

company did not lodge any complaint against the appellant regarding any practice of fraud by Tapas Kora or that he

was trying to cheat the company by impersonation. Witness disclosed that higher authority did not consider the

matter. The witness is also unaware about the payment of his mother’s gratuity made to Tapas Kora. The witness

stated that Tapas Kora is entitled to employment as a dependent, if he is the son of Late Niyati Kora.

10.

Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the dependent of Late Niyati Kora, advancing his

argument submitted that during the lifetime, Niyati Kora applied for voluntary retirement under FVRS and applied for

service of Tapas Kora, her son. The scheme was abolished on 02.06.1993 but Niyati Kora died on 01.01.1993, while

in service and before abolition of the FVRS. Thereafter Tapas Kora applied for his employment as a dependent under

the provisions of NCWA. It is argued that the management with an oblique motive to deprive Tapas Kora from his

rightful claim of employment had disputed that photograph appearing on the Attestation Form for the FVRS that it

2170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

belonged to some other person and was not of Tapas Kora. Learned advocate asserted that the photograph on the

Attestation Form was of Tapas Kora and his father’s name appeared as Late Abhiram Kora. It is further submitted that

after the death of his mother, Tapas Kora submitted his application dated 07.07.1993 for employment against the

death of his mother, i.e. within a very short period from the death of his mother. The Screening Committee of the

management examined various documents and on 08.04.1995 and observed that nothing appeared doubtful about the

relationship of Tapas Kora and on considering the documents such as Indemnity Bond, Relationship Certificate /

Attestation Certificate issued by the Block Development Officer of permanent locality, the Committee recommended

Tapas Kora for employment against his claim. Learned advocate argued that the management deliberately delayed

the matter and the delay in considering the dependent’s case for employment can be attributed to the management. It

is argued that Tapas Kora, being the dependent son, he is entitled to get employee under NCWA applicable to him.

11.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management, in reply, argued that Tapas Kora is not entitled to any

employment as a dependent of Late Niyati Kora due to the fact that Late Niyati Kora while nominating Tapas Kora,

for employment affixed photograph of different person other than Tapas Kora. Furthermore, at the time of appearance

of Tapas Kora before the Screening Committee of the company it was revealed that the age of Tapas Kora as 18 years

as on 01.04.1987 in the Service Record of Late Niyati Kora, while her date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1963 which

implies that Tapas Kora was only six (6) years younger to Late Niyati Kora, which is absurd and impossible and is an

outcome of impersonation of Tapas Kora as a son of Late Niyati Kora. Learned advocate further argued that in cross-

examination Tapas Kora (ww-1) admitted that he has a Driving License wherein his father’s name is recorded as

Naba Kora. Though the witness claims the same to be a mistake in printing, he admitted that he is using the Driving

License at the time of driving motor vehicle. Learned advocate submitted that unless such discrepancies relating to the

name, age, and identity are clarified to the satisfaction of the company no employment could be provided to Tapas

Kora.

12.

I have perused the Industrial Dispute referred for adjudication along with the written statement and evidence

of both parties. Also considered the argument advanced by the learned advocates in support of their respective cases.

13.

Instant reference has been made by the Government of India 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), as a

consequence of failure of conciliation proceeding before the Conciliation Officer. Niyati Kora, an employee of ECL

at Jambad Colliery, expired on 01.01.1993 and an application was submitted by Tapas Kora, son of Late Niyati Kora

on 07.07.1993 praying for providing him with employment against the death of his mother. A Photocopy of the said

application has been produced as Exhibit M-4. A Photocopy of Death Registration Certificate has been placed on

record as Exhibit WW-V. The dependent appears to have laid his claim for employment according to the provisions

of NCWA at the earliest point of time and within a period of six (6) months and six (6) days from the date of death.

The management took two years to arrange for holding screening test of Tapas Kora. On his appearance before the

Screening Committee, Tapas Kora disclosed that Late Abhiram Kora, his father was also an employee of ECL. At the

relevant time he was six to seven years of age when employment was provided to his mother who actually was an

insane person and died on 01.01.1993, leaving behind two sons and one daughter. Tapas Kora stated before the

Screening Committee that he is the eldest son and his sister was married during the lifetime of his mother. Regarding

nomination of any other person by the name of Tapas Kora as the son of the employee for employment, Tapas Kora

stated that he has no knowledge about the same. Regarding the photograph appearing on the Attestation Form, Tapas

Kora identified the person as Pawan Kora, son of Balram Kora, his paternal uncle. Nothing has been brought on

record by the management that such Attestation Form was submitted at the instance of Tapas Kora. Therefore, Tapas

Kora cannot be held responsible if any racket was functioning at different levels to make provision for employment of

any other person using the name of Tapas Kora against his interest. To my mind the management of ECL is

dutybound to unearth such malpractice and identify the persons responsible for such offence of impersonation. The

Screening Committee of the company, long back in 1995 was satisfied to recommend Tapas Kora for employment

subject to his medical fitness. It is to be borne in mind that a person cannot impersonate himself. Such finding of the

Screening Committee supports the claim of Tapas Kora. The pretext on which the company denied the employment to

the dependent son of the deceased, that there was impersonation of Tapas Kora for FVRS is unfounded and cannot

deprive the claimant of his employment.

14.

The dependent son of the deceased employee was eighteen years of age on 01.04.1987, therefore on

01.01.1993 Tapas Kora was twenty-four years of age. From array of documents like PAN Card and Voter Identity

Card it appears that the year of birth of Tapas Kora is 1970. Therefore, the age of Tapas Kora appearing as eighteen

years in the Service Record of his mother does not raise any doubt regarding his age at the relevant time. At this stage

no occasion has arisen for considering the correctness of age of Late Niyati Kora as recorded in the Service Record.

Any mistake in recording her age in the Service Record at the time of joining service cannot destroy the right for

employment of Tapas Kora, which arise from the agreed terms of NCWA.

15.

In a letter dated 07.06.2010 / 15.06.2010 issued by the Deputy Personnel Manager (Empl)ED, ECL,

Headquarters, addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on the subject matter of denial of

employment to the son of Late Niyati Kora (Exhibit WW-VII), it was stated that on examination of claim for

employment it was found that the photograph of Tapas Kora, does not tally / match with the photograph of Tapas

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2171

Kora submitted by Niyati Kora during her nomination, when she declared Tapas Kora as her son under FVRS. On the

basis of such mismatch of photograph, the management of the company has reached to a conclusion that Tapas Kora

has impersonated himself as the dependent son of the deceased employee, either in the application submitted during

the lifetime of Late Niyati Kora or after her death and for such a reason there is no merit in the claim for employment.

I did not find any substance in such allegation of the management. Tapas Kora cannot be held responsible for

affixing photograph of some other person claiming employment under FVRS. Such act does not serve interest of the

dependent son and it cannot be used to his disadvantage. The management has miserably failed to adduce any

evidence to establish that Tapas Kora was responsible for such act, which is actually against his interest. The stand

adopted by the management depriving Tapas Kora of his employment is violative of the agreed terms of NCWA and

hence unsustainable.

16.

On a conspectus of available material and the evidence adduced by the parties, I hold that the management of

ECL has committed undue delay in providing employment to the son of deceased employee. If for argument’s sake it

is accepted that there was any substance in the complaint of impersonation at the instance of Tapas Kora. The

management was dutybound to perform Police Verification for ascertaining the genuineness of the person, which is

the usual course adopted by the management in other cases. In absence of any such steps by the management it is

presumed that there was no ambiguity in the genuineness of Tapas Kora being son of Late Niyati Kora, it is also

reflected in the Page 2 of the Screening Committee’s Report that nothing was doubtful. It is also appeared that

Gratuity of Late Niyati Kora was released in favour of Tapas Kora in June 2009 and March 2011. The management

did not deny such averments in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-chief nor have they denied the claim. Several years

have passed since this dispute has been raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol and

thereafter referred to this Tribunal as an Industrial Dispute in the year 2012. I find no lacuna or fault on the part of

Tapas Kora, as he laid claim for employment soon after his mother’s death. The management has committed delay in

taking proper decision within time and thereby frustrated the dependent’s claim for employment under Clause 9.3.2 of

NCWA – V. To observe fairness of things the management is dutybound to finalize the claim for employment of

Tapas Kora within one (1) month from the date of communication of the Award. The Industrial Dispute is

accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner on contest against the management.

Hence,

ORDERED

that an Award be drawn up in favour of Tapas Kora, dependent son of Late Niyati Kora, ex-employee of

ECL, directing the management of Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL to process the claim for employment

within one (1) month from communication of the Award. 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. 994.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोयला ान भजवष्य जनजि संगठन ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सि

–

] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2024-आई.आर. (सी.एम-II)]

मजिकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2024

S.O. 994.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 61/2018) 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

2172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 61/2018

Between:

Smt. Pyndla Sagarika,

W/o Sampath Kumar,

R/o H.No.6-5-23, 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. Pyndla Sagarika 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

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2024

का.आ. 995.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेज‍ नल इंिीजनयररंग जलजमटेड; मेससब वजतरना रज‍िन कम्ृनी के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और श्री तेिबीर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िबष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़,

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : िून 1, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 14 , 1946

2173

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-12/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज, िो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 24.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आई.आर. (एम)-59]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2024

S.O. 995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 12/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; Mecneil Engineering Ltd; M/s Watrana Traction Company and Shri Tejbir which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.05.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-59]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 12/2019

Registered on:-3.4.2019

Tejbir, S/o Piare Lal, VPO-Barauli, Ganjbar, Distt.-Panipat(HR).

........Workman

Versus

1. Dy. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Polymer Terminal), Vill. & PO-Ball Jattan, Distt. Panipat.

2. Mecneill Engineering Ltd. through MD/CEO, Konchowki, Bhasa, Bishnupur, Distt. Sough 24 Parganas, West

Bengal.

3. M/s Watrana Traction Company through MD/CEO, Head Office, B-101, Gujranwala Town, Part-1, Delhi-110009.

...Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-05.04.2024

The workman Tejbir has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act

1947(hereinafter called the Act) for reinstatement with full back wages.

Today i.e. 5.4.2024 the case was fixed for filing affidavit by way of evidence of the workman and last

opportunity was granted to workman on 22.3.2024 and on that day one Sh. Ajay Chauhan, proxy for Sh. Diwan

Adlakha, AR for workman had appeared and prayed for further time for filing affidavit of workman with the

assurance that if the affidavit is not filed on 5.4.2024 then evidence of the workman be deemed as closed and his case

be also dismissed. On scrutiny of the order sheets, it is revealed that the case was fixed for filing affidavit by the

workman on 21.12.2021, 19.4.2022, 1.6.2022, 10.1.2023, 8.3.2023, 20.4.2023, 5.7.2023, 18.10.2023, 29.11.2023,

22.3.2024 and today i.e. on 5.4.2024 also. Several dates have been fixed by the Tribunal for filing affidavit by

workman which denotes that workman is neither serious nor interested in disposal of the case on merit.

Since the workman has not filed any affidavit to prove his case against the management despite several

opportunities as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, ‘No

Claim Award’ is passed in the present reference due to non-filing of the affidavit by the workman.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17(1) of the Act for

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

2174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 1, 2024/JYAISHTHA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2024

का.आ. 996.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय सरकार

जनयोिकों और श्री दिलबाग के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िबष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2,

चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-13/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज, िो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 24.05.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आई.आर. (एम)-60]

दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2024

S.O. 996.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd; Mecneil Engineering Ltd; M/s Watrana Traction Company and Shri Dilbag which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.05.2024.

[No. Z-16025/04/2024– IR (M)-60]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 13/2019

Registered on:-3.4.2019

Dilbag S/o Ram Bhaj, VPO-H.No.141, Near Chopal, Assadh, Distt.-Karnal(HR).

........Workman

Versus

1. Dy. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Polymer Terminal), Vill. & PO-Ball Jattan, Distt. Panipat.

2. Mecneill Engineering Ltd. through MD/CEO, Konchowki, Bhasa, Bishnupur, Distt. Sough 24 Parganas, West

Bengal.

3. M/s Watrana Traction Company through MD/CEO, Head Office, B-101, Gujranwala Town, Part-1,

Delhi110009.

...Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-05.04.2024

The workman Dilbag has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act