3353 GI/2024
(2369)
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. 23]
नई दिल् ली, िून 9—िून 15, 2024, िजनवार/ज् येष् ठ 19 —ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
No. 23]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 9—JUNE 15, 2024, SATURDAY/JYAISHTHA 19– JYAISHTHA 25, 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)
जविेि मन्त्रालय
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1084.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा, सरकार भारतीय कोंसलावास, बंिर अब्बास, में श्री अजनल कुमार, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को
िून 10, 2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/1/2024(19)]
एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-I)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-01072024-255042
CG-DL-W-01072024-255042
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-01072024-255042
CG-DL-W-01072024-255042
2370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1084.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anil Kumar,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Consulate of India, Bandar Abbas, to perform the
consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from June 10, 2024.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2024(19)]
S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)
ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 3 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1085.—केन् रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन सावविजनक
क्षेत्र के उृक्रम के जनम् नजलज त कायावलयों को, जिसके 80 या अजिक प्रजतित कमवचारी वषन् ि ने जिन् िी का कायवसािक ञान
प्राप् त कर जलया िज, अजिसूजचत करती िज:-
1.
गेल गजस जलजमटेड, ृिमिीृ टावर,
िी-10/8, तीसरी मंजिल,
संिय प्लेस, आगरा – 282002
2.
जिन्िुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,
जसजलगुड़ी ररटेल क्षेत्रीय कायावलय, जद्वतीय मंजिल,
िोमलैंड जबलल्डंग, 3 माइल, सेवक रोड,
जसजलगुड़ी – 734008
[फा. सं. 11012/3/2021-रा.भा.(2024)]
िोभना श्रीवास्ट् तव, उृ जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2024
S.O. 1085.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Public Sector
undertaking under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80 or more
percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi:-
1. GAIL Gas Limited, Padamdeep Tower,
G-10/8, 3rd Floor,
Sanjay Place, Agra – 282002
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Siliguri Retail Regional Office, 2nd Floor,
Homeland Building, 3 Mile, Sewak Road,
Siliguri – 734008
[F. No. 11012/3/2021-OL (2024)]
SHOBHANA SRIVASTAVA, Dy. Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1086.—तेल उद्योग (जवकास) अजिजनयम, 1974 (1974 का 47) की िारा 3 की उृ-िारा 3 (ए)
द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंर सरकार श्री प्रवीण मल नूिा, अृर सजचव, ृेरोजलयम और प्राकषजतक गजस
मंत्रालय को दिनांक 07.06.2024 से 06.06.2026 तक तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, इनमें से िो भी ृिले िो, के जलए
तेल उद्योग जवकास बोडव के सिस्ट्य के प ृ में एतिद्वारा जनयुि करती िज।
[फा. सं. िी-38011/41/2016-एफ.आई/ओएनिी.I]
अजमत बंसल, उृ सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2371
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1086. In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (3)(a) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry
(Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Praveen Mal Khanooja,
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas as Member of the Oil Industry Development Board
w.e.f. 07.06.2024 to 06.06.2026 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. G-38011/41/2016-F-I/ONG.I]
AMIT BANSAL, Dy. Secy.
वाजणज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय
(उद्योग संविवन और आंतररक व्याृार जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1087.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में उद्योग संविवन और आंतररक व्याृार जवभाग के जनयंत्रणािीन राष्ट्रीय
उत्ृािकता ृररषि् के जनम्नजलज त कायावलयों, जिनके 80% से अजिक कार्मवकों ने लिंिी का कायवसािक ञान प्राप्त कर
जलया िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1. राष्ट्रीय उत्ृािकता ृररषि, क्षेत्रीय जनिेिालय
एस.बी – 96, िवािर लाल नेिप मागव, बाृू नगर, ियृुर – 302 015
2. राष्ट्रीय उत्ृािकता ृररषि, क्षेत्रीय जनिेिालय
तषतीय तल, सुिामा भवन, बोररंग रोड चौरािा, ृटना-800 001
3. राष्ट्रीय उत्ृािकता ृररषि, क्षेत्रीय जनिेिालय
चतु व तल, कबीर भवन, उद्योग जनिेिालय ृररसर, िी.टी. रोड, कानृुर – 208 005
4. राष्ट्रीय उत्ृािकता ृररषि, क्षेत्रीय जनिेिालय
9, सजयि आजमर अली एवन्यु, ृाकव सकवस, कोलकाता, ृजिम बंगाल – 700 017
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2022-लिंिी]
रािीव लसंि ठाकुर, अृर सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade)
New Delhi, the 31st May, 2024
S.O. 1087.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of National Productivity
Council under control of Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade whose more than 80% staff have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
1. National Productivity Council, Regional Directorate
SB-96, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur -302 015
2. National Productivity Council, Regional Directorate
3rd Floor, Sudama Bhawan, Boring Road Crossing, Patna – 800 001
3. National Productivity Council, Regional Directorate
Fourth Floor, Kabir Bhawan, Directorate of Industries Campus, G.T. Road, Kanpur -208 005
4. National Productivity Council, Regional Directorate
9, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Park Circus, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 017
[F. No. E-11017/3/2022-Hindi]
RAJEEV SINGH THAKUR, Addl. Secy.
2372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
भारी उद्योग मंत्रालय
(लिंिी अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1088.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976
(य ासंिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, भारी उद्योग मंत्रालय के
प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन ‘बीएचईएल-काृोरेट, आर एंड डी, िजिराबाि’’ इकाई को, जिसके 80% से अजिक कमवचारीवषन्ि
ने लिंिी का कायवसािक ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत दकया िाता िज।
[फा. सं. ई-11012/2/2018-लिंिी]
जविय जमत्तल, संयुक् त सजचव
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES
(Hindi Section)
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1088—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011), the Central Government hereby notifies the BHEL-
Corporate, R & D, Hyderabad unit, an office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Heavy Industries
wherein more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11012/2/2018-Hindi]
VIJAY MITTAL, Jt. Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 22 जसतम्बर, 2023
का.आ. 1089.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री कमल कांत को दिनांक 18 जसतम्बर, 2023 के ृूवावह्न से 17 जसतम्बर, 2027
तक 4 वषो की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, तक के जलए केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय न. 2, चंडीगढ़ में ृीठासीन अजिकारी के ृि ृर जनयुि करते िज।
2. श्री कमल कांत की ृीठासीन अजिकारी, केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि-श्रम न्यायालय के ृि ृर जनयुजि
अजिकरण सुिार अजिजनयम, 2021 और उसके तित बने जनयम याजन अजिकरण (सेवा की ितें) जनयम, 2021 के
अनुसार जवजनयजमत की िाएगी।
[सं. अ-19011/11/2022-सीएलएस-II (ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाव, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023
S.O. 1089.—The President is pleased to appoint Sh. Kamal Kant as Presiding Officer of Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh for a period of 4 years with effect from the
forenoon of the 19th September, 2023 up to 18th September, 2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. The appointment of Sh. Kamal Kant as Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LC shall be regulated in terms of the
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules made thereunder, i.e. Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.
[No. A-19011/11/2022-CLS-II (E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 जसतम्बर, 2023
का.आ. 1090.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री अतुल कुमार गगव को दिनांक 15 जसतम्बर, 2023 के ृूवावह्न से 14 जसतम्बर,
2027 तक 4 वषो की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, तक के जलए केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय न. 2, दिल्ली में ृीठासीन अजिकारी के ृि ृर जनयुि करते िज।
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2373
2. श्री अतुल कुमार गगव की ृीठासीन अजिकारी, केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि-श्रम न्यायालय के ृि ृर
जनयुजि अजिकरण सुिार अजिजनयम, 2021 और उसके तित बने जनयम याजन अजिकरण (सेवा की ितें) जनयम, 2021
के अनुसार जवजनयजमत की िाएगी।
[सं. अ-19011/01/2023-सीएलएस-II (ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 22nd September, 2023
S.O. 1090.—The President is pleased to appoint Sh. Atul Kumar Garg as Presiding Officer of Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Delhi for a period of 4 years with effect from the
forenoon of the 15th September, 2023 up to 14th September, 2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. The appointment of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg as Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LC shall be regulated in terms of the
Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules made thereunder, i.e. Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.
[No. A-19011/01/2023-CLS-II (E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम्बर, 2023
का.आ. 1091.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री ृुणेन्िु कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव को दिनांक 22 जसतम्बर, 2023 के ृूवावह्न से
21 जसतम्बर, 2027 तक 4 वषो की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, तक के जलए केंरीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, िबलृुर में ृीठासीन अजिकारी के ृि ृर जनयुि करते िज।
2. श्री ृुणेन्िु कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव की ृीठासीन अजिकारी, केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि-श्रम न्यायालय के ृि
ृर जनयुजि अजिकरण सुिार अजिजनयम, 2021 और उसके तित बने जनयम याजन अजिकरण (सेवा की ितें) जनयम,
2021 के अनुसार जवजनयजमत की िाएगी।
[सं. अ-19011/02/2023-सीएलएस-II (ई)]
एस आर ित्ता, उृ सजचव
New Delhi, the 25th September, 2023
S.O. 1091.—The President is pleased to appoint Sh. Purnendu Kumar Srivastava as Presiding Officer of
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for a period of 4 years with effect from the
forenoon of the 22nd September, 2023 up to 21st September, 2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. The appointment of Sh. Purnendu Kumar Srivastava as Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LC shall be regulated in
terms of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules made thereunder, i.e. Tribunals (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 2021.
[No. A-19011/02/2023-CLS-II(E)]
S. R. DATTA, Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 29 जसतम्बर, 2023
का.आ. 1092.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री रािा मोिन चतुवेिी को दिनांक 25 जसतम्बर, 2023 के ृूवावह्न से 70 वषव की
आयु प्राप्त करने की तारी , यानी 04 जसतंबर, 2027 तक की अवजि के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो,
तक के जलए केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, ियृुर में ृीठासीन अजिकारी के ृि ृर जनयुि
करते िज।
2. श्री रािा मोिन चतुवेिी की ृीठासीन अजिकारी, केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि-श्रम न्यायालय के ृि ृर
जनयुजि अजिकरण सुिार अजिजनयम, 2021 और उसके तित बने जनयम याजन अजिकरण (सेवा की ितें) जनयम, 2021
के अनुसार जवजनयजमत की िाएगी।
[सं. अ-19011/03/2023-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
एस आर ित्ता, उृ सजचव
2374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 29th September, 2023
S.O. 1092.—The President is pleased to appoint Sh. Radha Mohan Chaturvedi as Presiding Officer of
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur with effect from the forenoon of the
25th September, 2023 up to date of attaining 70 years of age, i.e, 04th September, 2027 or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
2. The appointment of Sh. Radha Mohan Chaturvedi as Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LC shall be regulated in terms
of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules made thereunder, i.e. Tribunals (Conditions of Service) Rules,
2021.
[No. A-19011/03/2023-CLS-II(E)]
S. R. DATTA, Dy. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1093.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री श्रीकांत केिवराव िेिृांडे को दिनांक 03 मई, 2024 के ृूवावह्न से
15 फरवरी, 2028 तक के जलए अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, तक के जलए केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न्यायालय न. 2, मुंबई में ृीठासीन अजिकारी के ृि ृर जनयुि करते िज।
2. श्री श्रीकांत केिवराव िेिृांडे की ृीठासीन अजिकारी, केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण सि-श्रम न्यायालय के
ृि ृर जनयुजि अजिकरण सुिार अजिजनयम, 2021 और उसके तित बने जनयम याजन अजिकरण (सेवा की ितें) जनयम,
2021 के अनुसार जवजनयजमत की िाएगी।
[सं. अ-19011/01/2024-सीएलएस-II(ई)]
िनञ्जय िमाव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 9th May, 2024
S.O. 1093.—The President is pleased to appoint Sh. Shrikant Keshaorao Deshpande as Presiding Officer of
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai with effect from the forenoon of the 03rd
May, 2024 up to 15th February, 2028 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
2.
The appointment of Sh. Shrikant Keshaorao Deshpande as Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-LC shall be
regulated in terms of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 and the rules made thereunder, i.e. Tribunals (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2021.
[No. A-19011/01/2024-CLS-II(E)]
DHANANJAY SHARMA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1094.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (04/2021) izdkf”kr djrh
gSA
[la- ,y-41011/04/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.04/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/04/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2375
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 04 / 2021
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016
2. The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Western Railway, Diesel Shed,
Vatva, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 382440
….…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/04/2021-IR (B-I) dated 15.02.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh for Promotion, Seniority and MACP
benefits of Shri Symon R., Elect. Fitter, Gr.III is fair, legal & justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 25th February, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
2376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1095.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (06/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/16/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/16/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 06 / 2021
The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380016
…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/16/2021-IR (B-I) dated 05.04.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union viz., Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation, Ahmedabad for non-payment
of travelling allowances for the months of April-2016, July-2016 and December-2016 and overtime allowance for
the period from 14.01.2016 to 24.12.2016 to Shri Nilesh S. Khalasi is legal, just and proper? If not, as to what relief,
Shri Nilesh S. Khalasi is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 15th April, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2377
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1096.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (09/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/23/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.09/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/23/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 09 / 2021
1.
The General Manager,
Western Railway, Chuchgate,
Mumbai- 400020
2.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016
….…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhikl Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
2378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/23/2021-IR (B-I) dated 15.04.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh for correct pay fixation in respect of Shri
Priyakant Anjani Kumar & 22 others Assistant LOCO Pilots selected vide order No EM/890/1/2(Running)
25/GDCE dated 07.07.2016, is fair, legal & justified? If so, as to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th April, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising the
dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1097.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (11/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/26/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/26/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 11 / 2021
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016
…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
….Second Party
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2379
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause
(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/26/2021-IR (B-I) dated 19.04.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Indian Railway Labour Federation for pay fixation in respect of Shri Bhailal D
Solanki, Elect. Fitter Gr.-I, at par with his juniors Shri Jayesh R. Bhat and others w.e.f July 2008 and payment of
arrears thereof, is fair, legal & justified? If so what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th April, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising the
dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1098.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (07/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/19/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.07/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/19/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
2380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference (CGITA) No. - 07 / 2021
1.
The Chief Medical Director,
Western Railway, Churchgate,
Mumbai– 400020
2.
The Chief Medical Supdt,
Western Railway, New Railway Colony,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005
…. …….First Parties
V/s
The Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
12, Devganga Bunglows, Near Jantanagar,
Chandkheda, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382424
.…. ….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause
(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/19/2021-IR (B-I) dated 15.04.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union viz., Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad for not providing
proper medical treatment and facilities to their employees by the management of Chief Medical Director,
Western Railway, Mumbai and Chief Medical Supdt, Western Railway, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad is legal, just
and proper? If so, as to what relief, the Union is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th April, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising the
dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1099.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (08/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/21/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 5th June, 2024
S.O. 1099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/21/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2381
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 08 / 2021
The Assistant Finance and Chief Account Officer,
Western Railway, Chuchgate,
Mumbai- 400020
….…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/21/2021-IR (B-I) dated 15.04.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Bharatiya Rail Mazdoor Federation for restarting of family pension in the case of
Smt. Kasturiben Widow of Shri Mukun Chinnaswamy, from the date it is stopped and payment of arrears thereof, is
fair, legal and justified? If so, as to what relief Smt. Kasturiben Mukun Chinnaswamy is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th April, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1100.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (12/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/28/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
2382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/28/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 12 / 2021
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Bhavnagar(Gujarat)- 364001
2.
The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Western Railway,
Bhavnagar(Gujarat)- 364001
…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhikl Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh, (Rly),
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….…Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/28/2021-IR (B-I) dated 19.04.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh for dropping SF 11 dated
11.04.20219 issued by the Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Western Railway, Bhavnagar to Shri Rajesh C.
Nirmal, LOCO Pilot, is fair, legal & justified? If so what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th April, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising the
dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2383
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1101.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (13/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-41011/27/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.13/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/27/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 13 / 2021
The Sr. Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer,
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Asarwa, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)
….…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Indian Railway Labour Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/27/2021-IR (B-I) dated 06.05.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Indian Railway Labour Federation for illegal deduction from DCRG
amounting to Rs. 60,561/- and wrong pay fixation in respect of Shri Durgaprasad, Khalasi by Railway
Administration, is fair legal & justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21th May, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1102.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (25/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/35/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.25/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/35/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 25 / 2021
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016
2.
Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager,
Western Railway, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380016
…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhikl Bharatiya Karmchari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2385
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/35/2021-IR (B-I) dated 20.10.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh, Ahmedabad for old pension scheme in
respect of Shri Mahendra Singh, Assistant Commercial Clerk under Station Manager, Ahmedabad, is fair, legal &
justified? If so what relief the workman is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th October, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to
prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1103.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (25/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/39/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1103.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 27/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/39/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 27 / 2021
The Chief Medical Supdt,
Western Railway, Railway Colony,
2386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380005
.…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….… Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/39/2021-IR (B-I) dated 08.11.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation, Ahmedabad for service benefits to Shri
Kabji Lal, Zamadar, Kalol after attaining 60 years of age and compassionate appointment to his son is legal, just and
proper? If so, as to what relief the Shri Kabji Lal, Zamadar, Kalol is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 22th November, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1104.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (28/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/40/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1104.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.28/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/40/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2387
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 28 / 2021
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Personnel department,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 382345
….…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/40/2021-IR (B-I) dated 08.11.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union for promotion of S/Shri Lalbhardir R, Dipak Giriraj and Radheshyam
Yadav Vehicle Driver Gr. III. at par with Shri Sahiram and Choturam w.e.f. 17.07.2019 is legal, Just and proper? If
so, as to what relief, S/Shri Lalbahardir R, Dipak Giriraj and Radheshyam Yadav, Vehicle Driver Gr. III. are
entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 22th November, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to
prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1105.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (30/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/42/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
2388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1105.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/42/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 30 / 2021
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Personnel department,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 382345
….…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the Clause
(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/42/2021-IR (B-I) dated 08.11.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
1. “Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation, Ahmedabad, for promotion and increment for
the year July 2018 to Shri Ashok Sharma and 13 others, Track Maintainer (Gangman) working under Assistant
Divisional Engineer, Western Railway, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad is legal, just and proper? If so, as to what relief,
Shri Ashok Sharma and 13 others, Track Maintainer (Gangman) are entitled to?”
2. “Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation, Ahmedabad for payment of Bonus and
travelling allowance for the period from January, 2018 to November, 2018 to Shri Dinesh Kumar, Track
Maintainer (Gangman) working under Assistant Divisional Engineer, Western Railway, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad
is legal, just and proper. If so, as to what relief Shri Dinesh Kumar, Track Maintainer (Gangman) is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 22th November, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2389
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1106.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (31/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/43/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1106.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/43/2021- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 31 / 2021
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Personnel department,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 382345
…….First Party
V/s
The Zonal Secretary,
Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/43/2021-IR (B-I) dated 08.11.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Rail Mazdoor Federation, Ahmedabad, for payment of salary for the
period shown in the annexure-I to Shri Ashok Sharma and 13 others, Track Maintainer (Gangman) by the Railway
management is legal, just and proper. If so, as to what relief, Shri Ashok Sharma and 13 others, Track Maintainer
(Gangman) are entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 22th November, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
2390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1107.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृजिमी रेलवे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (33/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-41011/45/2021- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1107.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.33/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41011/45/2021- IR(B.I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 33 / 2021
1.
The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Western Railway, Dieselshed, Vatva,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 382440
2.
The Director,
M/s. Anva Rocker Technocraft Pvt. Ltd.
201, New Opera House, Nr. Harish Dying,
Khotodra, Surat(Gujarat)- 395002
….… ….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Akhikl Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/H Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
.…. ….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2391
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/45/2021-IR (B-I) dated 16.11.2021 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasang, Ahmedabad for reinstatement of Shri
Valechand Ramchand Kashiram and Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha in service with back wages, continuity and all
consequential benefits and for payment of wages from March 2020, are fair, legal & justified? If so, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 26th November, 2021. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested to
prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1108.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (25/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA+
[l- ,y-12011/22/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1108.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.25/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/22/2020- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
2392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference (CGITA) No. - 25 / 2020
1. The Manager,
UCO Bank,
13, Abhilasha Complex, Bhagwati Society,
Near Bus Stop,
Patan
2. Shri Avinash Parshottam Vyas,
18, Ratandeep Society, Unja Road,
Vill. Hansapur, Distt. Patan
….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
UCO Bank Nivrut Parivar,
237, Ellisbridge Shopping Centre,
Opp. Town Hall, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380006
….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/22/2020-IR (B-II) dated 20.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union viaz UCO Bank Nivrut Pariwar (Gujarat) Ahmedabad for reinstatement
of services of Shri Avinash Parshottam Vyas, Daily Casual Worker in UCO Bank with back wages and other service
benefits w.e.f. 11.06.2018 is legal, just and proper? If so, to what relief Shri Avinash Parshottam Vyas, Daily casual
workers is entitled to?”
1.
The reference was received in this Tribunal on 17th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through registered
post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties including
claimants.
2.
Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been elapsed
but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3.
In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4.
It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5.
The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2393
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1109.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
िीन ियाल ृोटव रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (14/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-37011/02/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1109.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Deendayal Port Trust
and their workmen.
[No. L-37011/02/2020- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 14 / 2020
1. The Chairman,
Deendayal Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50,
Gandhidham- 370201
2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer,
Deendayal Port Trust,
Administrative Office,
Post Box No. 50,
Gandhidham- 370201
….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
F/3, Adinath Arcade-1, Plot No. 583,
Ward 12-C
Gandhidham- 370201
.….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
2394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/02/2020-IR (B-II) dated 30.06.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Transport & Dock Workers Union of classifying the Lift Operators in Class-
III category at par with senior Office Attendants is legal, just and proper? And if yes, what relief the concerned
Union/lift operators is entitled to and to what extent?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 04th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1110.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
िीन ियाल ृोटव रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (15/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-37011/01/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1110.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.15/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Deendayal Port Trust
and their workmen.
[No. L-37011/01/2020- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2395
Reference (CGITA) No. - 15 / 2020
1. The Chairman,
Deendayal Port Trust,
Administrative Office Building,
Post Box No. 50,
Gandhidham- 370201
2. The Chief Engineer,
Deendayal Port Trust,
Administrative Office, P.B No. 50,
Gandhidham- 370201
.....…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
Transport & Dock Workers Union,
F/3, Adinath Arcade-1, Plot No. 583,
Ward 12-C
Gandhidham- 370201
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/01/2020-IR (B-II) dated 24.06.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Deendayal Port Trust, Gandhidham in redeploying and posting
of outdoor staff in offices to work in the Ministerial Cadre that resulted in changes in duty pattern is legal, just
and proper? And if not, what relief the concerned outdoor staff/union is entitled to and to what extent?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 04th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
2396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1111.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (23/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011/23/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1111.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/23/2020- IR(B-II]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 23 / 2020
1. The Manager,
UCO Bank,
25-26, Ground Floor, Kranti Bhawan,
Modhera Cross Roads,
Mehsana(Gujarat)- 382002
2. Shri Hitesh K. Mali,
1-9, Sundar Nagar Flats,
Naranpura Cross Road, Ankur Road,
Naranura, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)
...…….First Parties
V/s
The General Secretary,
UCO Bank Nivrut Parivar,
237, Ellisbridge Shopping Centre,
Opp. Town Hall, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)- 380006
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2397
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/23/2020-IR (B-II) dated 20.07.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Union viz UCO Bank Nivrut Pariwar(Gujarat) Ahmedabad for reinstatement
of services of Shri Hitesh K. Mali, Daily Casual Worker/Sweeper in UCO Bank with back wages and other
services benefits w.e.f. 19.04.2018 is legal, just and proper? If so, to what relief Shri Hitesh K. Mali, Daily
Casual Worker/Sweeper is entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 17th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1112.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ऑफ बड़ौिा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (16/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la0 ,y-12011/21/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/21/2020- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 15th May, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 16 / 2020
The Deputy General Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
North West Gujarat Zone,
2398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Opp; Law Garden, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380006
.....…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sangh,
A/3, Priya Darshini Society, New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad(Gujarat)- 380019
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/21/2020-IR (B-II) dated 24.06.2020 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the General Secretary, Glorious Petroleum Mazdoor Sang, Ahmedabad to appoint
Shri Jayesh P. Tundiya son of late Shri Pradhyunmanbhai K. Tundiay, Head Peon at service Branch,
Ahmedabad in the establishment of Bank of Baroda on compassionate ground with all benefits w.e.f.
11.10.2008 or ex-gratia payment to him is legal, fair and justified? If yes, then what relief the legal heir Shri
Jayesh P. Tundiay of late Shri Pradhyumanbhai K. Tundiya is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are
necessary in the matter?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 04th August, 2020. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal
through registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the
parties including claimants.
2. Considering the period of outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and spread of the new variant of the same
which was from March 2020 to February 2022 as excluded, a period of more than two years has been
elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not
interested to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1113.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (60/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012/111/2004- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1113.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.60/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2399
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punajab National Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/111/2004- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la-& 60@2004
Reference No. L-12012/111/2004-IR (B-II) Dated: 07.10.2004
Jh i`Fohjkt oekZ iq= Jh djrkjk jke oekZ] fuoklh& fot; ¶yksj fey] okMZ uEcj 12] iqjkuh vkcknh] Jh xaxkuxj]
¼jktLFkku½A
-------izkFkhZ
1- {ks=h; izca/kd] iatkc us’kuy cSad] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] ehjk pkSd] tokgj uxj] Jhxaxkuxj ¼jktLFkku½A
--------vizkFkhZ@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh oh- ,l- uSu] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr] vfHkHkk"kd foi{khA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 07-10-2004 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs
ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼?k½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr
vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Sri Ganganagar in
imposing the punishment of dismissal from service without notice on Shri Prathviraj Verma
vide order dated 26-10-2002 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from
which date?
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 19-04-2004 dks vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA ftldk
laf{kIr vuqfnr o.kZu bl izdkj gS%&
3- izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr ihyhcaxk 'kk[kk esa fnukad 19-04-1984 dks ihvksu ds in ij gqbZ FkhA ogkW mlus 19-05-1987
rd dk;Z fd;k rRi'pkr fnukad 20-05-1987 dks mls fyfid ds in ij inksUur djrs gq;s guqekux<+ Vkmu
Hkstk x;kA flrEcj] 1989 esa izkFkhZ dks guqekux<+ Vkmu ls foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk ckank esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k
x;kA mDr 'kk[kk esa dksbZ fu;fer izca/kd ugha Fkk vkSj Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ] ys[kkdkj 'kk[kk izca/kd ds :Ik esa
dk;Z dj jgs FksA Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ xaHkhj vfu;ferkvksa esa lafyIr Fks ftudk izkFkhZ }kjk fojks/k fd;k x;kA
blfy, Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ }kjk nqHkkZouk iwoZd izkFkhZ ds fo:} "kM+;a= jprs gq;s fnukad 25-07-2001 dks
fuyfEcr dj fn;k x;kA ;g fuyEcu vukf/kd`r FkkA fnukad 06-12-2001 dks izkFkhZ dks vkjksi i= fn;k x;k tks
fd 'kk[kk izca/kd us gh gLrk{kfjr fd;k] tks bl gsrq l{ke ugha FksA izkFkhZ ds fo:} tks vkjksi yxk;s x;s
mudk o.kZu nkos ds isjk 7 esa fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ tkfr ls dqEgkj gS vkSj Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ 'kgj ds
izfrf"Br O;fDr;ksa ls lEidZ esa gksus ds dkj.k izHkko'kkyh FksA 'kk[kk izca/kd us izkFkhZ dks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld
:Ik ls mRihfMr djrs gq;s dqN i=ksa ij gLrk{kj viuh bPNkuqlkj djok fy;sA tkWp vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr ds
2400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ckn tkWp ds le; mDr Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ ogha mifLFkr jgrs Fks rkfd tkWp dk;Zokgh dks izHkkfor fd;k tk
ldsA tkWp vf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ dks leqfpr cpko dk volj ugha fn;k rFkk izkd`frd U;k; ds fl}kUrksa dk guu
djrs gq;s izkFkhZ ds fo:} vkjksi fl} eku fy;s x;s vkSj fnukad 26-102002 dks izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr dj nh
xbZA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy Hkh fnukad 31-07-2003 dks vLohdkj dj nh xbZA izkFkhZ dks isaU'ku dk ykHk Hkh
ugha fn;k x;k tks foi{kh cSad ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dh nqHkkZouk dk izek.k gSA izkFkhZ ds fo:} fn;k x;k n.Mkns'k
mlds nqjkpj.k dk vuqikfrd ugha gSaA lsok lekfIr ds mijkar izkFkhZ csjkstxkj gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ
tkWp vkSj ikfjr n.Mkns'k dks vikLr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fujarjrk vkSj ikfj.kkfed osru ifjykHkksa lfgr
lsok esa iqu% cgky fd;k tkosA
4- fnukad 11-01-2005 dks foi{kh }kjk vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa izLrqr oknksRrj dk laf{kIr vuqfnr fooj.k bl izdkj gS%
5- foi{kh dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dks tks vkjksi i= fnukad 06-12-2001 dks fn;k x;k og xksfoUnjke ls 30]000&@
v{kjs rhl gtkj :- izkIr djus mldh jlhn ns nsus] fdarq dS'kcqd esa vkSj _.k[kkrs tSls cSad ds vfHkys[kksa esa
mudh izfof"B u djus rFkk 5000&@ gtkj :- izhre flag uke ds [kkrsnkj ls izkIr dj cSad esa tek u djus
ls lacaf/kr nqjkpj.k ds fy, FkkA izkFkhZ us mlds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj fd;kA fdarq fQj Hkh
vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh us izkFkhZ ds fo:} foHkkxh; tkWp djus dk vkns'k fn;kA tkWp vf/kdkjh us Hkh izkFkhZ dh
Li"V Lohd`fr ds vk/kkj ij viuk izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k vkSj vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkWp vf/kdkjh ds
fu"d"kZ ls lger gksrs gq;s fcuk uksfVl cSad lsok ls inP;qfr dk vkns’k fn;kA vihyh; izkf/kdkjh us Hkh ldkj.k
vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k dh iqf"V dhA bl izdkj tkWp dk;Zokgh vkSj n.Mkns'k ikfjr djus esa izkd`frd
U;k; ds fl}karksa dk guu ugha gqvkA ;fn tkWp dks nwf"kr ik;k tk;s rks foi{kh cSad dks vkjksi izekf.kr djus ds
fy;s lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj iznku fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ us LosPNk ls vkjksi Lohdkj fd;s gSA rRdkyhu
'kk[kk izca/kd ij yxk;s x;s vfHk;ksx Ik'pkrorhZ fopkj ek= gSA izkFkhZ dk fuyacu {ks=h; vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu
ls fd;k x;k gSA okn i= esa of.kZr lHkh dFku xyr gksus ls vLohdkj gSA izkFkhZ us tks nqjkpj.k cSad ds izfr
fd;k og v{e; gSA blfy, mls isaU’ku dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk ldrk vkSj n.Mkns'k U;k;ksfpr vkSj Ik;kZIr gSaA
vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
6- fnukad 02-06-2005 dks esjs iwoZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk foHkkxh; tkWp dh 'kq}rk dk ijh{k.k dj mls mfpr ,oa
_tq ik;kA
7- izkFkhZ us rnqijkar izkFkhZ ds fo:} cSad vf/kdkfj;ksa dh nqHkkZouk ,oa oSeuL; dks izekf.kr djus gsrq lk{; izLrqr
djus dk volj ekWxk ftls bl vf/kdj.k }kjk vLohdkj dj fn;k x;kA bl vkns'k ds fo:} izkFkhZ us ekuuh;
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k flfoy fjV fiVh'ku la- 7791@2005 i`Fohjkt oekZ cuke jhtuy esustj
iatkc us'kuy cSad izLrqr dhA bl ;kfpdk ij ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 25-01-2006 dks
vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s ;g funsZ'k fn;k fd vf/kdj.k ;kph dks nqHkkZouk ,oa vuqfpr Je O;ogkj ds lhfer {ks=
esa lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj nsaA foi{kh cSad dks izkFkhZ dh lk{; dk fo[k.Mu djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA
8- bl vkns'k ds vuqlj.k esa izkFkhZ us Lo;a i`Fohjkt oekZ dks lk{; esa ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj izys[kh; lk{; ds :Ik esa
izn'kZ&W 1 ls izn'kZ &W 3] rd iznf'kZr fd;sA
9- foi{kh us viuh lk{; esa Jh dkyh izlkn 'kekZ] ofj"B izca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k vkSj dksbZ izys[k i`Fkd ls
iznf'kZr ugha fd;kA
10- fnukad 21-03-2024 dks eSaus mHk;i{k ds rdZ] izLrqr dh xbZ lk{; ,oa U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds lanHkZ esa
lqusA
11- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ ds yEcs dk;Zdky esa mlds fo:} nqjkpj.k dh dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gqbZA
dk;Zokgd 'kk[kk izca/kd Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ vfu;ferrkvksa esa fyIr FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk mldk fojks/k djus ij og
mlls nqHkkZouk j[kus yxkA izkFkhZ dks Mjk&/kedk dj vkSj ekjihV dj vkjksi i= esa okf.kZr nqjkpj.k dks Lohdkj
dj ysus dk ncko Mkyk x;k vkSj ;g vk'oklu fn;k x;k fd mls cpk fy;k tk;sxkA izkFkhZ ds fuyacu gsrq
'kk[kk izca/kd l{ke gh ugha FkkA foi{kh cSad us mDr iou dqekj 'kekZ dks cSad dh lsok esa jgrs gq;s Hkh fo[kaMu
gsrq lk{; esa ijhf{kr ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ ds fdlh Hkh nqjkpj.k ls cSad dks dksbZ gkfu ugha gqbZA izkFkhZ us lHkh :Ik;s
C;kt lfgr tek djok fn;sA bl fLFkfr esa inP;qfr dk n.M nqjkpj.k dk vuqikrh ugha gSA vr% U;kf;d
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2401
gLr{ksi djrs gq;s n.Mkns'k dks vikLr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukfdar
fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;s%
1- bykgkckn cSad o vU; cuke d`".k ukjk;.k frokjh 2017 LAB I.C. 892 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
2- ,s- ds- lDlsuk cuke LVsV cSad vkWQ ifV;kyk o vU; ¼2016½ 11 SCC 289A
12- foi{kh dh vksj ls ;g fojks/kh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ foHkkxh; tkWp mfpr ,oa 'kq} ik;h xbZ gSA
izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls cSad vf/kdkjh iou dqekj 'kekZ ds fo:} tks vfHk;ksx yxk;k x;k gS og u rks fo'oluh; gS
u gh izekf.kr gqvk gSA izkFkhZ us izn'kZ&W 1 o izn'kZ&W 2 nkukjke vkSj izhre flag ds 'kiFk i=ksa dh ek= QksVks
izfr;kW izLrqr dh gS tks u rks fo'oluh; gS u gh lk{; esa xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA bu O;fDr;ksa dks izkFkhZ us
lk{; esa izLrqr Hkh ugha fd;kA izn'kZ&W 3] izkFkhZ Lo;a }kjk rS;kj fd;k x;k dk;Z fooj.k gS tks fd fdlh
izdkj fo'oluh; ugha yxrk D;ksfd lsok ls fudkys tkus ds ckn izkFkhZ ls dksbZ dk;Z cSad esa ugha fy;k x;kA
izn'kZ &W 3 ij fdlh Hkh cSad vf/kdkjh dk izek.khdj.k ugha gSA izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd 'kiFk i= ds isjk
3 esa of.kZr dk;ksZa ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; ugha gSA mlds lkFk 'kkjhfjd ekjihV o mRihMu ds laca/k esa
mlus dksbZ izFke lwpuk ughas nhA og Lohdkj djrk gS fd fnukad 05-07-2000 ds ckn og dHkh cSad ugha x;kA
izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh ekuk gS fd ikfjokfjd ifjLFkfr;ksa o ekW ds bZykt ds fy;s mls ,slk dk;Z djuk iMkA bl
fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds izfr cSad vf/kdkjh }kjk nqHkkZouk j[kus o vuqfpr Je O;ogkj djus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha
gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dks fn;k x;k n.M fd;s x;s nqjkpj.k dks ns[krs gq;s mfpr o vuqikfrd gS] ftlesa dksbZ gLr{ksi
ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;s%
1- uxj ikfydk ukVkSj cuke ;w- ih- ifCyd lfoZl deh'ku fVªC;wuy y[kum ¼1998½ 2 SCC 400A
2- Lons'k iky ckfy;ku cuke ,;j QkslZ dekafMx bu phQ 2004 ¼4½ SCT 726 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
13- mHk;i{k ds rdZ] lk{; ,oa fof/k ij euu ds mijkar bl fookn esa fuEukfdar fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%
14-
1- D;k 'kk[kk izca/kd iou dqekj 'kekZ }kjk Lo;a ,oa vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feydj izkFkhZ dks ekufld ,oa
'kkjhfjd :Ik ls mRihfMr dj Lo;a dh bPNkuqlkj izkFkhZ ls mldh gLrfyfi esa dqN i= fy[kok;s x;s rFkk
izkFkhZ dks vkjksi Lohdkj djus gsrq foo'k fd;k x;k ,oa tkWp dk;Zokgh dks vuqfpr :Ik ls izHkkfor fd;k
x;k tks vuqfpr Je O;ogkj gS\
-----------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr n.Mkns'k fl} nqjkpj.k ds izfr vuuqikrh gS ftlesa U;kf;d gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk
visf{kr gS\
-----------------izkFkhZ
3- vuqrks"k%&
15- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvksa ij dzfed fofu'p; bl izdkj gS%
16-
17- bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= lk{; esa izLrqr dj ;g dgk gS fd 'kk[kk izca/kd Jh iou dqekj 'kekZ
ds vuqfpr dk;Zdykiksa esa lg;ksx u djus ds dkj.k og mlls ukjkt gks x;sA mUgksusa cSad xzkgdksa ls [kkyh
dkxtks ij gLrk{kj djok dj >wBh f'kdk;rsa izkFkhZ ds fo:} dj >wBk fjdkMZ cuk;k rFkk izhre flag o
nkukjke ds uke ls f'kdk;rsa dwVjfpr dhA fnukad 05-07-2001 dks izkFkhZ ds lkFk cSad ds vUnj ekjihV dhA
iou dqekj 'kekZ us ekufld ncko vkSj mRihM+u djrs gq;s tkaWp esa lHkh vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj djus dks dgkA
ncko o Hk; ds dkj.k izkFkhZ us tkWp vf/kdkjh ds le{k vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj fd;kA izkFkhZ us izfrijh{kk esa ;g
dgk gS fd 'kiFk i= ds iSjk 3 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ¼iou dqekj 'kekZ ds dfFkr nqjkpj.k esa lkFk u nsus ls iou
dqekj dk izkFkhZ ls ukjkt gksuk rFkk >wBh f'kdk;ras rS;kj djokuk½ ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gS]
2402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
D;ksfd mls is'k ugha djus fn;k& mlus nkukjke o izhre flag dks tkWp esa is'k ugha fd;k] mlus bl ckr dh
vyx ls f'kdk;r Hkh ugha dhA
18- izkFkhZ us 'kiFk i= ds isjk 4 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ¼izhre flag o nkukjke ds uke ls >wBh f'kdk;rsa rS;kj djokuk]
voS/k dk;ksZ ij inkZ Mkyuk rFkk 05-07-2001 dks izkFkhZ ds lkFk ekjihV djuk½ ds laca/k esa dksbZ izFke lwpuk
¼F.I.R.½ ntZ ugha djok;hA mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh lwfpr ugha fd;k u gh bl laca/k esa nLrkost is'k fd;s gSA
tkWp dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku iou dqekj 'kekZ ds mifLFkr jgus vkSj gLr{ksi djus ds laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ f'kdk;r
ugha dhA
19- bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us tks dFku vius eq[; ijh{k.k ds 'kiFk i= esa fd;s gSa mudk dksbZ leFkZu
fdlh Hkh izys[k vFkok fdlh O;fDr dh ekSf[kd lk{; ls ugh fd;kA tcfd izkFkhZ ds fo:} dfFkr feF;k
f'kdk;rksa dks fy[kokus dk rF; mu f'kdk;rksa ds lk{; esa izLrqfrdj.k ,oa dfFkr f'kdk;rdrkZvksa dks lk{; esa
ijhf{kr dj] izekf.kr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] fdarq izkFkhZ us izhre flag o nkukjke uke ds O;fDr;ksa dks Hkh lk{; esa
ijhf{kr ugha fd;k gSA
20- izkFkhZ dh ;g Lohd`fr fd mlus fnukad 05-07-2001 dks iou dqekj 'kekZ }kjk cSad dh 'kk[kk esa] dk;Z≤ esa
dh xbZ ekjihV ds vijk/k dh dksbZ izFke lwpuk izLrqr ugha dh] izkFkhZ ds vfHk;ksx dks vLokHkkfod ,oa lafnX/k
cukrh gSA 'kkjhfjd mRihMu ,oa ekjihV tks laLohd`fr djokus ds mn~s'; ls dh xbZ gks] fu'fpr :Ik ls ,d
xaHkhj ,oa laKs; vijk/k gSA ,sls vijk/k dh lwpuk u rks iqfyl dks vkSj u gh cSad ds mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks nsuk
izkFkhZ ds dFku dks feF;k izekf.kr djrk gSA
21- bl rF;kRed ifjn'; esa izkFkhZ ij fdlh izdkj ds ncko ;k mRihMu dk iz;ksx dj iou dqekj 'kekZ }kjk
vkjksiksa ds izfr laLohd`fr djokuk fo'oluh; ugha yxrk gSA
22- vc esa izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ laLohd`fr ds i=ksa dk mYys[k djuk Hkh lqlaxr ekurk gwWA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS
fd izkFkhZ ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dk feF;k f'kdk;rksa ij vk/kkfjr gksuk Hkh izekf.kr ugha ik;k x;k gSA
blfy, izkFkhZ iou dqekj 'kekZ }kjk ;g vk'oklu fn;k tkuk fd og mls vkjksi Lohdkj dj ysus ij n.M ls
cpk ysxk] Lor% gh vk/kkjghu gks tkrk gSA
23- fnukad 21-12-2001 dks izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ laLohd`fr esa izkFkhZ us mldh ekrkth ds T;knk chekj gksus o ckn esa
mudk LoxZokl gks tkus ds dkj.k tekdrkZvksa dh jkf'k dk iz;ksx dj fy;k tkuk rFkk ckn esa C;kt lfgr
jkf'k tek djok nsuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA ;fn izkFkhZ us cSad ds tekdrkZvksa dh jkf'k dk O;;u futh mn~s';ksa ls
ugha fd;k gksrk rks bl jkf'k dks C;kt lfgr tek djokus dh fLFkfr mRiUu gh ugha gksrhA izkFkhZ us fnukad
25-03-2002 dks tkWp vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr i= esa vkjksiksa dh laLohd`fr djrs gq;s foHkkxh; tkWp dh vko';drk
gh u gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA fnukad 25-05-2002 dks izkFkhZ us vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dks lacksf/kr i= esa Hkh
viuh laLohd`fr dks iqujko`r fd;k gSA fdarq ;g laLohd`fr iou dqekj 'kekZ ds ncko ;k mls cpk ysus ds
feF;k vk'oklu ds izHkko esa djuk izkFkhZ us ugha dgk gSA blfy, izkFkhZ }kjk vihy ds Kkiu ek= esa] fnukad
26-10-2002 dks n.Mkfn"V fd;s tkus ds mijkar iou dqekj 'kekZ }kjk mRihM+u o ncko Mkyus dk dFku djuk
izkFkhZ }kjk viuh izfrj{kk esa lqfopkfjr ,oa fufeZr ,d ~i'pkrorhZ fopkj ek= yxrk gS] tks fdlh izdkj
fo'oluh; u gksus ls xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ tkWp bl vf/kdj.k }kjk oS/k ,oa
mfpr ik;h xbZ gSA bl foospu ds mijkar izkFkhZ ij rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk nqHkkZouk&tfur 'kkjhfjd ,oa
ekufld mRihMu djuk ;k vuqfpr Je O;ogkj djuk izkFkhZ ds lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA foi{kh ds lk{kh
dkyh izlkn us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa tks dFku fd;s gS os izfrijh{kk esa [kf.Mr ugha gks ik;s gSA bl fu"d"kZ ds
mijkar ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
24-
25- fcUnq la- 1 ds fofu'p; ds vUrxZr izkFkhZ }kjk yxk;s x;s vfHk;ksx izekf.kr ugha gq;s gSA izkFkhZ }kjk dh xbZ
vkjksiksa dh laLohd`fr LoSfPNd o fdlh ncko ;k mRihMu ds izHkko fcuk dh xbZ gSA bu vkjksiksa ds vUrxZr
izkFkhZ ij foi{kh cSad ds 2 [kkrsnkjksa ls dqy 35]000@& ¼v{kjs isarhl gtkj½ :- izkIr djus ds i'pkr muds
[kkrksa esa tek u djrs gq;s bl jkf'k dk nqfoZfu;kstu djuk izekf.kr gqvk gSA vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd
;g jkf'k izkFkhZ }kjk C;kt lfgr okfil pqdk fn;s tkus ls cSad dks dksbZ {kfr ugha igqph gSA izkFkhZ ls lsok
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2403
lekfIr ds mijkar Hkh foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk esa dk;Z fy;k x;k gS tks izkFkhZ dh dk;Z dq'kyrk ,oa fu"Bk dk
izek.k gSA izkFkhZ ds yEcs dk;Zdky ds nkSjku dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gqbZ] u gh n.M fn;k x;kA blfy, izkFkhZ dks
lsok ls c[kkZLrxh dk n.M fl} fd;s x;s nqjkpj.k dk vuqikfrd ugha gSA vr% vf/kdj.k }kjk] n.Mkns'k dks
vikLr fd;k tkosA mUgksaus vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; bykgkckn cSad o vU;
cuke d`".k ukjk;.k frokjh dk voyEc fy;k gSA bl fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd
tc izkd`frd U;k; ds fl}karks dk guu gqvk gks rks lsok ls o[kkZLrxh dk n.M vikLr djrs gq;s lsok fuo`fRr
ykHk ,oa lsok esa fujarjrk lfgr 50 izfr'kr foxr osru fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA
26- loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk gh fu.kZ; ,s- ds- lDlsuk cuke LVsV cSad vkWQ ifV;kyk o vU; esa ikfjr fof/k dk
mYys[k djrs gq;s izkFkhZ ds vfHkHkk"kd dk vkxzg gS fd xzkgd ds [kkrs ls NyiwoZd 80000@& :- dk vkgj.k
izekf.kr gksus ij Hkh lsok lekfIr ds LFkku ij izkFkhZ dh lsok fuo`fRr dh vk;q dks n`f"Vxr j[k mls lsok fuo`Rr
ekus tkus ,oa rRlaca/kh ifjykHk iznku djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA
27- eSaus bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij fopkj fd;kA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr vf/ker gLrxr fookn ds rF;ksa ls lqfHkUu
rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA bl fookn esa izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ tkWp esa izkd`frd U;k; ds
fl}karksa dk guu gksuk ugha ik;k x;k rFkk tkWp izfdz;k 'kq} ,oa mfpr ik;h xbZ gSA izkFkhZ ds lkFk vU; dksbZ
lg vkjksfir deZpkjh Hkh ugha gS ftlds izfr leku nqjkpj.k ds fy, mnkjrk cjrh xbZ gksA blfy, rF;kRed
fHkUurk ds dkj.k bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lgk;d ugha gSA
28- blds foijhr foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk C;kt lfgr /kujkf'k okfil tek djok nsus rFkk cSad dks
vkfFkZd {kfr u gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dk nqjkpj.k {kE; ugha gks tkrk gSA izkFkhZ us cSad ds fo'okl dk guu djrs
gq;s izfr"Bk dks Bsl yxkbZ gSA izkFkhZ us vkjksiksa dks Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ls lsok lekfIr ds ckn cSad esa
dksbZ dk;Z ugha djok;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fooj.k izn'kZ&W 3 Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk fufeZr gSA ftl ij foi{kh
}kjk dksbZ izek.khdj.k ;k lR;kiu ugha fd;k x;k gSA mUgksaus ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa
uxj ikfydk ukVkSj cuke ;w- ih- ifCyd lfoZl deh'ku fVªC;wuy y[kum rFkk Lons'k iky ckfy;ku cuke ,;j
QkslZ dekafMx bu phQ esa ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc ysrs gq;s fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr n.Mkns'k esa
gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA
29- bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd tc vkjksfir }kjk nqjkpj.k dh laLohd`fr
dh xbZ gks rks lg vfHk;qDr ;k fdlh lk{kh fo'ks"k dks izLrqr u fd;s tkus ls vkjksfir dh izfrj{kk fo{kqC/k ugha
gksrhA tkWp izfdz;k izkd`frd U;k; ds fl}karks ds vuq:Ik gks rFkk tkWp ls vkjksi izekf.kr Hkh gks rks lsokeqfDr
dk n.M mfpr gSA
30- eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZ ij /;kuiwoZd euu fd;kA bl fookn esa izkFkhZ ds fo:} izekf.kr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ
us foi{kh cSad ds [kkrsnkjksa ls dqy 35]000@& ¼v{kjs isarhl gtkj½ :- izkIr djus ds ckn muds lacaf/kr [kkrksa
esa tek u djrs gq;s ml jkf'k dk futh mn~s';ksa ls nqfoZfu;kstu fd;k rFkk vkjksi Lohdkj fd;kA esjs vfHker ls
;g egRoiw.kZ ugha gS fd Ik'pkrorhZ ?kVukdze esa izkFkhZ us ;g /kujkf'k C;kt lfgr tek djok nh gks rFkk cSad
dks dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr ugha gqbZ gksA ,d cSad deZpkjh ls mPp Lrj dh bZekunkjh] drZO;fu"Bk ,oa lko/kkuh dh
vis{kk dh tkrh gSA /kujkf'k okfil dj nsus ij Hkh nqjkpj.k dk 'keu ugha gksrkA U;k;ky; }kjk n.Mkns'k esa
gLr{ksi djrs le; u dsoy /kujkf'k oju~ euksn'kk] drZO; dk Lo:Ik rFkk vU; lqlaxr ifjfLFkfr;k ftuesa cSad
,oa [kkrsnkj ds e/; ikjLifjd fo'okl dk laca/k Hkh lefyr gS] ij fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gksrk gSA tgkW
fo'okl] lR;fu"Bk ,oa drZO;ijk;.kf;rk ,d varfuZfgr vis{kk gks rks nqjkpj.k dks dBksjrk ls fy;k tkuk
pkfg;sA fn;k x;k n.M ;fn fujk/kkj] euekuk ,oa nqHkkZoukiw.kZ gks ftlls U;k;ky; dh U;kf;d vUrkZRek
m}sfyr gks rHkh mlesa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 ¼d½ ds vUrxZr U;kf;d 'kfDr
vlhfer ,oa vfu;af=r ugha gSA tc tkWap mfpr ik;h xbZ gks vkSj nqjkpj.k fl} gks x;k gks rks n.M dk
fu/kkZj.k vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ds ln~foosd ij gh NksM fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s nqjkpj.k ls
;|fi cSad dks dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr ugha gqbZ] fdarq izkFkhZ us mlds fu;kstd cSad }kjk izkFkhZ es U;Lr fo'okl dks
vifjfer gkfu igqWapk;h gSA O;olkf;d leO;ogkj esa fo'okl dk Hkax gksuk izkFkhZ ij vkjksfir n.M dks ;qfDr
laxr ,oa U;k;ksfpr Bgjkrk gSA blfy;s bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izkFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr inP;qfr
dk n.Mkns'k mlds fo:} fl} gq;s nqjkpj.k dk vuqikfrd gS ,oa gLr{ksi ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds
fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
2404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
31-
32- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 o 2 izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr gksus ij foi{kh cSad }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:} ikfjr fcuk uksfVl
lsok ls c[kkZLrxh dk n.M U;k;ksfpr izekf.kr gksrk gS] ftlesa dksbZ gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha gSA
33- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
34- 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
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1114.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (128/2005) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-12012/100/2005- vkbZ vkj (ch-I]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1114.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.128/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/100/2005- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-12012/100/2005-IR (B-I) Dated: 22.11.2005
Jh HkS: yky lkyoh iq= Jh ghjk yky lkyoh] fuoklh& 17] ukjk;.k fuokl] E;wfufliy ikdZ ds ikl] /kksyh ckoMh]
mn;iqj ¼jkt-½A
-------izkFkhZ
1- lgk;d egkizca/kd] LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] mn;iqj jhtu] U;w Qrsgiqjk] mn;iqjA
2- phQ eSustj] LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] 'kk[kk 'kkL=h lfdZy] mn;iqjA
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh vkj- lh- tSu] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh mn; 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh vkj- ds- tSu] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ foi{khx.kA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 22-11-2005 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls
vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa
fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
CGIT-128/05
“Whether the action of the management of S.B.I. Shastri Circle Udaipur, in terminating the
services of Shri Bheru Lal Salvi, w.e.f. 25/04/2001 and not paying the equal wages for the equal work is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? ’’
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2405
2- fnukad 17-05-2019 dks bl vf/kdj.k }kjk vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq;s S.B.B.J. ¼LVSV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M
t;iqj½ dk foy; S.B.I. ¼LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k½ esa gks tkus ij S.B.B.J. ds LFkku ij S.B.I. ¼LVSV cSad vkWQ
bf.M;k½ dks izR;kLFkkfir djrs gq;s la'kksf/kr 'kh"kZd izLrqr djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa
izkFkhZ }kjk la'kksf/kr okn 'kh"kZd izLrqr dj fn;k x;kA
3- izkFkhZ us fnukad 17-01-2006 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA ftlds laf{kIr dFku bl izdkj gaS%&
4- izkFkhZ dh izFke fu;qfDr 09-07-1994 dks pkSdhnkj de fi;ksu ds in ij foi{kh la- 2 ds v/khu gqbZA izkFkhZ us
fnukad 25-04-2001 rd fujarj dk;Z fd;k rFkk lsokeqDr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ iwoZ dh vof/k esa 240
fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ }kjk fd;s tkus okyk dk;Z LFkkbZ izd`fr dk FkkA lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds iwoZ
izkFkhZ dks u rks dksbZ uksfVl fn;k x;k u gh uksfVl osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½ ds
vUrxZr NaVuh izfrdj Hkh ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedkas dks lsokeqDr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj lsokeqfDr
ds ckn u;s Jfedksa dks Hkh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼F½] ¼G½] ¼H½ dk
mYya?ku gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa leLr vkfFkZd ifjykHkksa lfgr lsok esa fy;k tkosA
5- fnukad 12-04-2006 dks foi{khx.k us oknksRrj esa ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ dk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugh gSA foi{kh cSad us
izkFkhZ dh dHkh fdlh izdkj dh fu;qfDr ugha dh vkSj u gh lsokeqDr fd;kA mHk;i{k ds chp fu;kstd vkSj
Jfed ds laca/k ugha gSaA foi{khx.k us vf/kfu;e ds fdlh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ us dsoy
vuqca/k ds vuqlkj fu'fpr dk;Z fd;k gSA vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku izkFkhZ dks dksbZ vuqrks"k fnyk;s tkus esa lgk;d
ugha gSA foi{kh cSad dh fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k gSA foi{kh us viuh cSad 'kk[kk esa tujsVj yxokus gsrq
jkts'k fjis;fjax oDlZ ls tujsVj fdjk;s ij ysdj 'kk[kk esa yxok;k FkkA izkFkhZ vuqca/k ds vk/kkj ij tujsVj dh
ns[kHkky o pykus dk dk;Z djrk FkkA blds vfrfjDr foi{kh cSad dh 'kkL=h uxj] mn;iqj 'kk[kk esa lkbZfdy
LVsa.M dh ns[kHkky ds fy;s izkFkhZ dks lafonk ij j[kk x;k FkkA blds vfrfjDr vkSj dksbZ dk;Z ugha djok;k
x;kA bu dk;ksZ dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ us fcuk vkifRr fd;s izkIr fd;kA izkFkhZ vU;= jkstxkj esa gS] vkSj viuh
thfodk pyk jgk gSA izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
6- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ HkS:yky lkyoh dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ w.
izys[k
iznf'kZr fd;kA
7- foi{khx.k }kjk vius lk{; esa th- ,y- lkyoh] izca/kd dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ M-1 ls
izn'kZ M- 47 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
8- fnukad 26-12-2023 dks mHk;i{k ds rdZ lquus ds nkSjku mHk;i{k dh lgefr ls vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k ,oa
Je U;k;ky; tks/kiqj dk vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad 14-09-2004 vf/kdj.k }kjk izn'kZ C-1 ds :Ik esa iznf'kZr fd;k
x;kA
9- fnukad 02-01-2024 dks eSus mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/k;ksa ds 'ks’k ekSf[kd rdZ lqus rFkk lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;kA
10- izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;k;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s%&
¼1½
LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke iwtk o vU; 2022 ¼173½ FLR 209 ¼fgekpy izns'k mPp U;k;ky;½A
¼2½
LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke gjh’k pUnz 'kekZ o vU; 2006 ¼4½ RLW 3028 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½A
¼3½
lk/kwjke cuke nsgyh VªkWUliksVZ dksiZjs'ku 1983 ¼47½ FLR 326 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
¼4½
,sXT;qD;wfVo bathfu;j CPWD bankSj cuke e/kqdj iq:"kksRre dksyckjdj 2000 ¼87½ FLR 727
¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
¼5½
xkSjh'kadj cuke LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku ¼2016½ 1 SCC (L&S) 546-
¼6½
f'kouanu 'kekZ cuke iatkc uS'kuy cSad fy- 1955 ¼I½ LLJ 688 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½
¼7½
/kjax/kjk dSehdYl oDlZ fy- cuke LVSV vkWQ lkSjk"V ¼1957½ LLJ 477 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
¼8½
vt;iky flag cuke gfj;k.kk os;j gkWmflax dksiZjs’ku 2015 ¼145½ FLR 425 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
2406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼9½
LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke Jh egsUnz tks'kh 2003 ¼1½ WLC (47) ¼jktLFkku½A
¼10½
eSustj eS- feRry LVhy esU;q- da- cuke pkSFkkjke o vU; 2005 ¼3½ WLC 430 ¼jktLFkku½A
¼11½
Mk;jsDVj fQ'kjht VehZuy fMohtu cuke Hkhdw HkkbZ es?kkth HkkbZ pkoMk 2010 ¼1½ LLN 48 ¼lqizhe
dksVZ½A
¼12½
eSustj eqfLye eqlkfQj [kkuk eksrh Mawxjh t;iqj cuke tghj [kku 2016 ¼151½ FLR 995
¼jktLFkku½A
¼13½
jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWQhlj ,- ,l- vkbZ- lokbZek/kksiqj 2017 ¼2) WLC ¼jktLFkku½ UC
637A
¼14½
jktLFkku ,xzhdYpjy ;wfuoflZVh cuke bf.MLVªh;y fVªC;wuy ,oa ysoj dksVZ 2010 ¼124½ FLR 285
¼jktLFkku½A
¼15½
fMLVªfjDV vksfi;e vkWQhlj] ukjdksfVDl fMikVZesUV cuke lqjs'k dqekj thuxj 2023 ¼177½ FLR 802
¼jktLFkku½A
¼16½
Mkyfe;k nknjh lhesUV fy0 cuke vorkj ukjk;.k xqtjky 1962 FLR 219 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½A
¼17½
S.D.O. y{e.kx< cuke gfjvkse 'kekZ flfoy vihy ua- 1298@2023 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ vkns'k frfFk 20-
02-2023A
11- foi{khx.k dh vksj ls vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukfdar U;k;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s%&
¼1½
lsdzsVjh LVSV vkWQ dukZVd cuke mek nsoh AIR 2006 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 1806A
¼2½
foHkwfr 'kadj ik.Ms; cuke LVSV vkWQ e/; izns'k AIR 2023 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 832A
¼3½
BHEL cuke vfuy o vU; JT 2006 ¼10½ ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 297A
¼4½
jkexksiky lSuh cuke n tt yscj dksVZ ua- 2 t;iqj 2001 ¼1½ WLC ¼jktLFkku½ 592A
12- eSus mHk; i{k ds rdksZ miyC/k lk{; ,oa U;k;f;d n`"Vkarks esa ikfjr fof/k ij /;ku iwoZd fopkj fd;k bl
fookn esa fuEukfdar fopkj.kh; fcUnq U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq mRiUu gq;s gSA ftu ij foosfpr fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk
jgk gSA
1- D;k izkFkhZ dks pkSdhnkj de ih;ksu ds in ij 09-07-1994 dks foi{kh ds v/khu fu;qfDr nh xbZ rFkk
25-04-2001 dks lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ esa izkFkhZ us 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k\
------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ij foi{kh us izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj Jfedksa dks lsok esa cuk;s j[kk ,oa u;s
Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr fd;k\
------------izkFkhZ
3- D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{khx.k us izkFkhZ dks ,d ekg dk iwoZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru rFkk
NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k bl fy;s izkFkhZ dh NaVuh voS/k gS\
------------izkFkhZ
4- D;k dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr ;g fookn fof/k ds vUrxZr pyus ;ksX; ugha gSa\
------------foi{kh
5- vuqrks"k D;k gks\
13- mi;qZDr fopkj.kh; fcUnqvks ij fofu'p; ikfjr djus ls iwoZ ;g mYys[k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn esa foi{kh cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dks leku dk;Z gsrq leku osru u fn;s tkus laca/kh iz'u
Hkh lsok lekiu ds lkFk lekfo"V gSaA fdarq izkFkhZ us u rks vius vfHkopuksa esa vkSj u gh vius lk{; esa leku
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2407
dk;Z dk lerqY; osru u fn;s tkus dk rF; of.kZr fd;k gSA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd izn'kZ C- 1 vf/kfu.kZ;
fnukad 14-09-2004 ¼vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kdj.k tks/kiqj }kjk ikfjr½ ftlesa fu;fer prqFkZ JS.kh deZpkjh ds
leku osru o vU; lqfo/kk;s u fn;s tkus dk fcUnq fopkj.kh; Fkk] ds laca/k esa mHk;i{k ds e/; le>kSrk gksus ds
dkj.k dksbZ fookn 'ks"k u jgus ds vk/kkj ij vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr gks tkus ij] laHkor% blh dkj.k izkFkhZ us bl
laca/k esa nkos ds vfHkdFku esa u rks vfHkopu esa vkSj u gh 'kiFk i= esa dksbZ dFku fd;kA ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Mkyfe;k nknjh lhesUV fy0 cuke vorkj ukjk;.k xqtjky rFkk S.D.O. y{e.kx< cuke
gfjvkse 'kekZ esa izfrikfnr fof/k ds vUrxZr izn'kZ C- 1 vf/kfu.kZ; pwfda mHk;i{k ds e/; xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij
ikfjr ugha gqvk gSa] bl vf/kfu.kZ; dks mHk;i{k ds lanHkZ esa ÞiwoZ fu.kZ;ß ds :Ik esa xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
mHk;i{k ds rdksZ] lk{; o fu.kZ;t fof/k ij fopkj ds mijkar fopkj.kh; fcanqvksa ij fofu’p; fuEukuqlkj ikfjr
fd;k tk jgk gSA
14-
15- izkFkhZ HkS: yky lkyoh us vius lk{; ds 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd 09-07-1994 dks mldh izFke fu;qfDr
foi{kh cSad esa gqbZ Fkh rHkh ls og cSad esa dk;Zjr gSA bldh iqf"V foi{kh ds 'kk[kk izca/kd ds i= fnukad 06-04-
2000 izn'kZ W- 1 ls gksrh gSA foi{kh lk{kh th- ,y- lkyoh us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd
izn'kZ W- 1 mudh cSad dh 'kk[kk dk i= gS rFkk bl i= esa izkFkhZ dks Bsds ij dk;Z nsus dk mYys[k ugha gSA
bl Lohd`r fLFkfr esa foi{kh cSad ds 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk fy[ks x;s i= fnukad 06-04-2000 ¼ izn'kZ W- 1½ dks
fdlh fu"d"kZ ij vkus ds mn~s'; ls vk/kkj cuk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA bl i= esa foi{kh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS
fd ÞJh HkS: yky lkyoh foxr 6&7 o"kksZa ls lkbZfdy LVS.M ij pkSdhnkj ds :Ik esa nSfud etnwjh :- 15@&
ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zjr gS pkSdhnkj ds :Ik esa budk dk;Z iw.kZ larks"kizn jgk gSaÞ mi;qDrZ rF;kRed LohdkjksfDr esa
foi{kh }kjk izLrqr bl rF; dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSa fd izkFkhZ dks eS- jkts'k fjis;fjx oDlZ ls vuqca/k ds vk/kkj
ij tujsVj lsV ds j[kj[kko ,oa lapkyu dk dk;Z djus gsrq 500@& :- ekfld Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gks rFkk
blds vfrfjDr cSad dh 'kkL=h uxj] mn;iqj 'kk[kk esa fdjk;s ij fy;s x;s lkbZfdy LVS.M dh ns[kHkky ds
fy;s izkFkhZ dks lger jkf'k ij j[kk x;k gksA oju bl i= esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks 15@& :- nSfud
etnwjh ij pkSdhnkj ds :Ik esa j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj foxr 6&7 o"kksZ ls vFkkZr vizsy] 1994 ls izkFkhZ dk dk;Z iw.kZ
larks"kizn gh jgk gSA izn'kZ C- 1 i= esa ;g mYys[k Hkh ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dks vko';drk ds vuq:Ik le;&
le; ij dk;Z djus ds fy;s cqyk;k tkrk jgk gksA
16- bl LohdkjksfDr ds izdk'k esa izn'kZ M- 2 ls izn'kZ M- 46 rd izkFkhZ dks fd;s x;s Hkqxrku laca/kh izkFkZuk i=
,oa okmplZ dk ifj'khyu ;g n'kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks ;}fi 15@& :- nSfud etnwjh ij lkbZfdy LVS.M dh
pkSdhnkjh ds fy;s j[kk x;k Fkk fdarq mls Hkqxrku djus ds le; mlls ,d izkFkZuk i= fy[kok;k tkrk Fkk
ftlesa mls dk;Z dks Bsds ij fy;s tkus dk rF; fy[kok;k tkrk Fkk tcfd Hkqxrku okmplZ esa fuEukuqlkj Li"V
vadu fd;k tkrk jgkA
17- “Charges a/c (misc.) to the account of vehicle stand watchman labour charges to Bheru Lal” Hkqxrku
okmplZ esa “Labour Charges” 'kCnkoyh dk iz;ksx bl rF; dk izek.k gS fd HkS:yky dks fd;k x;k Hkqxrku
fdlh vuqca/k ;k lafonk ds LFkku ij u gksdj Jfed }kjk fd;s x;s dk;Z ds izfrdj Lo:Ik etnwjh ds Hkqxrku
gsrq fd;k x;k FkkA bl rF; dh iqf"V izn'kZ W- 1 foi{kh ds i= fnukad 06-04-2000 ls Hkh gksrh gSA foi{kh ds
lk{kh th- ,y- lkyoh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks lkbZfdy LVS.M Bsds ij nsus ds laca/k esa dksbZ
fyf[kr nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ,oa cSad ds chp lkbZfdy LVS.M dh fuxjkuh gsrq dksbZ Contract
fu"ikfnr ugh gqvk FkkA lk{kh ;g Hkh dgrk gS fd izkFkhZ ls Vsyhxzke Hkh fHktokrs Fks rFkk vko';drk gksus ij
vU; dk;Z Hkh fy;k tkrk Fkk ftlesa Mkd nsuk] lkekuksa dh ejEer djokuk fjdkMZ :e esa okmplZ tekuk vkfn
'kkfey gS bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks lkbZfdy LVS.M ij pkSdhnkjh dk dk;Z Bsds ij ugha fn;k x;k
oju izkFkhZ dks cSad ds fofHkUu dk;ksZ ds laiknu gsrq 15@& :- nSfud osru ij o"kZ vizsy] 1994 ls gh j[kk x;k
FkkA rFkk izkFkhZ ls 25-04-2001 rd blh izdkj yxkrkj dk;Z fy;k tkrk jgkA bl fu"d"kZ dh iqf"V izn'kZ W- 1
i= rFkk izn'kZ M- 2 ls izn'kZ M- 46 Hkqxrku laca/kh izys[kksa ls gksrh gSA
18- Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; f'kouanu 'kekZ cuke iatkc uS'kuy cSad fy- esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS
fd tc cSad us Vsªtjj dks fdlh lafonk ds v/khu fu;qDr fd;k gks rFkk ,sls Vsªtjj }kjk dk;Z laiknu gsrq
2408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqca/k ds vUrxrZ vU; lgk;d dfeZ;ksa dks fu;qDr fd;k gks rks ,sls fu;qDr fd;s x;s dehZ pwfda cSad ds dk;Z
laiknu gsrq fu;qDr fd;s x;s gS] cSad ds gh deZpkjh ekus tk;sxsaA
19- Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; /kjax/kjk dSehdYl oDlZ fy- cuke LVSV vkWQ lkSjk"V esa vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 2 ds vUrxrZ ÞdeZdkjß dh ifjHkk"kk ij izdk'k Mkyrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd Jfed dks fdlh m|ksx esa
dk;Z djus gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk mlds deZdkj gksus dh vko';d 'krZ gSA pwfda izkFkhZ dk foi{kh ds v/kkhu
6&7 o"kZ rd yxkrkj nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa dk;Zjr gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gSa] Ekkuuh; jktLFkku mPp
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa eSustj eqfLye eqlkfQj [kkuk eksrh Mawxjh cuke tghj [kku ,oa jktLFkku ,xzhdYpjy
;wfuoflZVh cuke bf.M;u fVªC;wuy ,oa ysoj dksVZ esa izfrikfnr fof/k ds izdk’k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 B ds
izko/kkuksa dk iz;kstu visf{kr ugha jgk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dh lsok iw.kZ djus dk
rF; i`Fkd ;s izekf.kr djuk vko';d ugha jgk gSA
20- Ekkuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; eSustj eS- feRry LVhy esU;q- da- cuke pkSFkkjke] jkeizlkn ekyh
cuke jhtuy vkWQhlj ,- ,l- vkbZ- vkWQ bf.M;k lokbZek/kksiqj rFkk Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;
Mk;jsDVj fQ'kjht VehZuy fMohtu cuke Hkhdw HkkbZ eaxth HkkbZ pkoMk esa izfrikfnr vf/kerksa ij dksbZ foospu
fd;k tkuk mi;qDrZ fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij vko';d izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl foospu ds mijkar ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ
ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
21-
22- izkFkhZ HkS: yky lkyoh us vius 'kiFk i= ds isjk 7] esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh ds v/khu mls lsok eqDr djrs
le; mlls dfu"Brj Jfed ßHkS:ykyÞ dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk isjk la- 8 esa ;g dgk gS fd lsokeqfDr ds Ik'pkr ftu
Jfedksa dks j[kk x;k muds uke js[kk dY;k.k] lqxuh nsoh] 'kadj yky ,oa eghiky gSA fdarq izkFkhZ izfrijh{kk esa
;g dgrk gS fd mlus 'kiFk i= ds isjk la- 7] ftl HkS:yky dk uke mYys[k fd;k gS og mlh dk uke gS]
vFkkZr izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj dksbZ vU; Jfed ds dk;Zjr gksus dk mYys[k izkFkhZ us ugh fd;k gSA bl izdkj ;g
izekf.kr gksrk gS fd ml le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B dksbZ Jfed foi{kh ds v/khu dk;Zjr ugha FkkA blh dze esa izkFkhZ
us ftu O;fDr;ksa dks lsokeqfDr ds mijkar dk;Z ij j[kuk dgk gS mu O;fDr;ksa dks foi{kh }kjk fu;qDr fd;s
tkus ds izek.k laca/kh dksbZ izys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS vkSj u gh foi{kh ls izLrqr djok;s tkus dk dksbZ fuosnu
fd;kA foi{kh ds lk{kh th- ,y- lkyoh us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g dgk gS fd js[kk dY;k.k] lqxuh nsoh] 'kadj
yky ,oa eghiky dks cSad esa fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ] bUgsa ikVZVkbZe ;k dStqvy :Ik esa j[kk Fkk ;k ugha] mldh
tkudkjh ugha gSA og iqu% Li"V djrk gS fd 25-04-2001 ¼izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr frfFk½ ds ckn bl 'kk[kk esa dksbZ
ikVZVkbZe ;k dStqvy Jfed ugh j[kk x;kA lk{; dh bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gS mldh
dfFkr lsokeqfDr frfFk 25-04-2001 dks izkFkhZ ls dfu"B fdlh O;fDr dks lsok esa gh jgus fn;k gks ,oa 25-04-2001
ds mijkar fdlh vU; O;fDr dks leku dk;Z gsrq fdlh izdkj fu;ksftr fd;k gksA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj
ls izLrqr fu.kZ; LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke Jh egsUnz tks'kh o vU; esa izfrikfnr fof/k izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lgk;d
izrhr ugh gqbZ gSA bl fu"d"kZ ds mijkar ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
23-
24- izkFkhZ HkS: yky lkyoh us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g dgk gS fd 25-04-2001 dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ls iwoZ mls
dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkots dk Hkqxrku ughas fd;k x;kA foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ izfrijh{kk
esa bl rF; dk dksbZ [k.Mu ugha gks ik;k gSA foi{kh ds lk{kh th- ,y- lkyoh }kjk vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g ugha
dgk gS fd mUgksus izkFkhZ dks lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku
fd;k gksA bl izdkj ;g rks Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk dksbZ uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru
,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku u djrs gq;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu foi{kh }kjk ugha
fd;k x;kA Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,sXT;qD;wfVo bathfu;j CPWD bankSj cuke e/kqdj iq:"kksRre dksy ckjdj
ds fu.kZ; esa NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk ls lacaf/kr vf/ker ikfjr djrs gq;s dgk gS fd fu;qfDr fdlh fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds
fy;s fd;k tkuk izekf.kr u gksus ij nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed dh lsok ds lekiu ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2
¼oo½ ¼bb½ ds izko/kku iz;ksT; ugha gksxsaA vkSj ,slk lsok lekiu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼oo½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh
gksxkA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2409
25- Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us gh xkSjh'kadj cuke LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku ds fu.kZ; esa ;g ekxZn’kZu fn;k gS fd
Jfed dh NaVuh fd;s tkus ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu vko’;d gS vU;Fkk
fd;k x;k lsok lekiu voS/k gksxkA
26- Ekkuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius fu.kZ; vt;iky flag cuke gfj;k.kk os;j gkWmflax dksiZjs'ku esa ;g dgk
gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds fdlh Hkh Hkkx dk mYy?kau gksus ij fu;kstd Lo;a ds d`R; dks ;g dg dj
U;k;ksfpr ugha Bgjk ldrk fd Jfed dh izkjfEHkd fu;qfDr lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 16 ds foijhr gSA
27- Ekkuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fMLVªfjDV vkWQhlj ukjdksfVDl cuke lqjs'k dqekj thuxj esa
;g dgk gS fd lsok eqfDr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk ikyu u fd;s tkus ij lsokeqfDr
voS/k gksxhA
28- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la-&1 ij izkIr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ vizsy] 1994 ls gh foi{kh ds
v/khu nSfud osru Hkksxh pkSdhnkj ds ij ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlus 25-04-2001 rd yxkrkj
foi{khx.k ds v/khu dk;Z fd;kA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25
F ds vUrxZr uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru dk Hkqxrku u fd;s tkus vkSj lkFk gh NaVuh izfrdj Hkh u fn;s tkkus ds
dkj.k foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ lsok lekfIr voS/k NaVuh izekf.kr gksrh gSA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu.khZr
fd;k tkrk gSA
29-
30- foi{khx.k us vius vfHkopuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr Dyse ljdkj }kjk izsf’kr jsQjsUl fof/k ds
vuqlkj pyus ;ksX; ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk foi{kh ds le{k dksbZ ekWx u j[ks tkus ds dkj.k jsQjsUl voS/k gSA
bl lanHkZ esa lqlaxr fof/k dk ifj'khyu djus ij ;g izdV gksrk gS fd ;g fookn leqfpr ljdkj ¼dsUnzh;
ljdkj½ }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼d½ ds izko/kku ds vUrxZr bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA bl
fLFkfr esa bl vf/kdj.k dks leqfpr ljdkj }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s lanHkZ vkns'k dh oS/krk ds ijh{k.k dk
{kS=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA Ekkuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke gjh'k
pUnz 'kekZ esa ;g dgk gS fd vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkjrk jsQjsUl ds fuc/kuksa rd gh lhfer gSA
vf/kdj.k ds le{k jsQjsUl vkns’k dks pqukSrh ugha nh tk ldrh gSA vkjfEHkd voLFkk esa bls ek= mPp
U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk izLrqr dj pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gSA bl vf/ker ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gS fd dsUnz
ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn dks lanfHkZr fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nh tk
ldrhA vr% ;g fcUnq foi{kh ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
31-
32- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la- 1 ds fofu'p; ls ;g fu"d"kZ izkIr gqvk gS fd fnukad 25-04-2001 dks foi{khx.k }kjk dh
xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k voS/k
NaVuh gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ dh ;g lsok lekfIr foi{khx.k ds vuqfpr JekH;kl ;k nqjk’k; iwoZd dh xbZ
dk;Zokgh izekf.kr ugha gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B fdlh O;fDr dks u rks lsok ds le; dk;Z ij j[kk x;k u gh
lsok lekfIr ds mijkar vU; O;fDr;ksa dks leku dk;Z gsrq lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gqvk gSA izkFkhZ
us lsok esa fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru lfgr iqu% fu;qDr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA izkFkhZ us LFkkbZ fu;qfDr
vFkok lsok esa fu;ferhdj.k dh ekWx ugha dh gSA
33- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; ds nkSjku ;g dgk gS fd mls lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds ckn ls og fcYdqy csjkstxkj gSA
izfrijh{kk esa Hkh mlus ;g dgk gS fd mlus ukSdjh gsrq iz;kl fd;k fdarq ukSdjh ugha feyhA mldh iRuh ?kjsyw
dke djus tkrh gS mlesa og FkksM+h cgqr enn djrk gSA blds foijhr foi{khx.k us vius oknksRrj esa ;g rks
dgk gS fd izkFkhZ vU;= jkstxkj esa gS rFkk viuh thfodk pyk jgk gSA fdarq bu vfHkopuksa dks fdlh izdkj
lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh th- ,y- lkyoh vius lEiw.kZ ijh{k.k esa ;g ugha dgrs fd izkFkhZ
dgha ij ykHkkFkZ fu;ksftr gS rFkk og viuh thfodk pykus esa l{ke jgk gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds vfHkopu
,oa lk{; fdlh fo[kaM+u ds vHkko esa izekf.kr gksrs gSA foi{khx.k mu ij vkjksfir bl fl}hHkkj dk mUekspu
ugha dj lds gS fd izkFkhZ lsok lekfIr ds mijkar fdlh ykHkizn fu;kstu esa jgk gSA
2410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
34- izkFkhZ us Lo;a dks nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa foi{kh ds v/khu 6&7 o"kZ dh vof/k rd dk;Zjr jguk dgk gSA
foi{kh us Hkh Lo;a ds i= W 1 esa bl rF; dh LohdkjksfDr djrs gq;s iq"V fd;k gSA fdarq nSfud osru Hkksxh
Jfed dks cSad }kjk fdlh fofgr p;u izfdz;k ds vUrxZr LFkkbZ in ds fo:} fu;fer :Ik ls fu;qDr ugha
fd;k x;kA foi{khx.k us blh vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks fof/kor fu;qDr Jfed u ekurs gq;s NaVuh ds iwoZ viukbZ
tkus okyh izfdz;k tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds vUrxZr visf{kr Fkh] dk vuqikyu ugh fd;kA
35- LVSV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke iwtk ds fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; fgekpy izn'kZ mPp U;k;ky; us fu;kstd cSad }kjk
izLrqr rF;ksa dks feF;k izekf.kr gksus ij vuqfpr JekH;kl ekuk gS rFkk Jfed dks foxr osru ifjykHk lfgr
lsok esa iqu% ysus dk vkns’k fn;k gSA fdarq] bl fookn esa foi{khx.k ds i= W- 1 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks fopkfjr
djrs gq;s] ftlesa foi{kh 'kk[kk izca/kd us izkFkhZ dh 6&7 o"kZ dh lUrqf"Vizn lsok ds vk/kkj ij 1@3 osru ij
fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh gS] foi{kh dk O;ogkj vuqfpr JekH;kl ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA
36- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; xkSjh'kadj cuke LVSV vkWQ jktLFkku esa Jfed dks voS/k lsok lekiu
ds mijkar lsok esa izR;kLFkkiu ,oa {kfriwfrZ ds LFkku ij ek= izfrdj fnyk;s tkus dks vuqfpr vo'; Bgjk;k
gSA fdarq bl fu.kZ; ds rF; gLrxr fookn ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu izdV gq;s gSaA mi;qDrZ fu.kZ; esa Jfed dks LFkkbZ
,oa Lohd`r in ds fo:} fu;kstu esa j[kuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS tcfd bl fookn esa Lohd`r :Ik ls izkFkhZ dks
15@& :- nSfud etnwjh ij vLFkkbZ :Ik ls dk;Z ij j[kuk izekf.kr gqvk gSA mYys[kuh; ;g Hkh gS fd izkFkhZ
dh fu;qfDr fdlh LFkkbZ ,oa fjDr in ds fo:} fu/kkZfjr p;u izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k esa ugha dh xbZA foi{khx.k
dh vkSj ls lsdzsVjh LVSV vkWQ dukZVd cuke mek nsoh ,oa foHkwfr 'kadj ik.Ms; cuke LVSV vkWQ e/; izns'k ds
fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vf/ker dk voyEc fy;k x;k gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd tc rd fu;qfDr lqlaxr fu;eksa ,oa fofgr p;u izfdz;k ds v/khu u dh
xbZ gks] fu;qDr O;fDr dks dksbZ vf/kdkj iznku ugha djrh gSA tc fu;qfDr nSfud osru ij vkdfLed Jfed ds
:Ik esa dh xbZ gks rks ,slh fu;qfDr mldh lrrrk ds Hkax gksus ij lekIr gks tkrh gSA ,d vLFkkbZ deZpkjh]
lsok vof/k ds lekiu ij mls LFkkbZ fd;s tkus dk nkok ugha dj ldrk gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk bl
fookn esa mls foi{khx.k dh lsok esa fu;fer :Ik ls fu;qDr fd;s tkus gsrq vFkok LFkkbZ fu;qfDr fn;s tkus dk
vuqrks"k ugha ekWxk x;k gSA
37- vc ;g fcUnq fopkj.kh; gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds ÞvoS/k NaVuhß izekf.kr gksus ds mijkar mls lsok esa
foxr osru lfgr izR;kLFkkfir fd;k tkuk pkfg;s vFkok mls ,d eq’r izfrdj foi{khx.k ls fnyok;s tkus ij
U;k;fgr lk/ku gks ldsxkA
38- bl fookn ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks o"kZ 1994 esa 15@& :- izfrfnu nSfud osru ij vLFkkbZ :Ik ls
fu;ksftr fd;k x;k rFkk yxHkx mlus 6 o"kZ 9 ekg rd foi{khx.k ds v/khu dk;Z fd;kA foi{khx.k }kjk ;g
fu;qfDr vLFkkbZ nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa dh xbZ Fkh rFkk fu;qfDr ds iwoZ foi{kh cSad ds izpfyr fu;eksa ds
v/khu fdlh fofgr p;u izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k Hkh ugha fd;k x;kA ;g fu;qfDr fdlh fjDr ,oa LFkkbZ in ds
fo:} fd;k tkuk Hkh izekf.kr ugha gSA bl ifjn`’; esa ;fn izkFkhZ dks lkbZfdy LVS.M ds pkSdhnkj ds in ij
iqu% lsok esa fy;s tkus dk funsZ’k foi{kh dks ns Hkh fn;k tkrk gS rks ;s laHkkouk fuewZy ugha gksxh fd foi{kh }kjk
vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsokeqDr dj fn;k tkosaA
39- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fu.kZ;ksa dh ,d Ja`[kyk esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd lsok lekfIr dks /kkjk 25 F
vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr izfdz;k ds mYy?ku ds vk/kkj ij voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ij foxr osru lfgr lsok esa
iqu% inLFkkiu ;a=or@ Lor% fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z ugha gSA izR;sd izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj ds
Ik'pkr Jfed dks lsok esa iqu% inLFkkiu ds cnys leqfpr ,deq'r izfrdj fnyk;k tkuk mfpr gSA ;g vf/ker
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us tlohj flag cuke LVSV vkWQ gfj;k.kk ¼2009½ 15 SCC 327 t;iqj fodkl
izkf/kdj.k cuke jke lgk; ¼2006½ 11 SCC 684 ,oa Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fy- cuke Hkw:ey ¼2014½ 7 SCC
177 ¼bl vf/kdj.k }kjk mn~/k`r½ esa ikfjr fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ikfjr fd;k gSA
40- bl rF;kRed ifjn`'; esa pwfda izkFkhZ dks ,d vLFkkbZ nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :Ik esa vkt ls yxHkx 22 o"kZ iwoZ
lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k rFkk mldh fu;qfDr u rks fjDr ,oa LFkkbZ in ds fo:} Fkh u gh mls fofgr p;u
izfdz;k ds vUrxZr fu;qDr fd;k x;k] esjs vf/ker ls izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iqu% inLFkkfir fd;s tkus ,oa foxr
osru fnyok;s tkus ds LFkku ij leqfpr ,deq’r izfrdj fnyk;s tkus ls U;k;fgr lk/ku gks ldsxkA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2411
41- vr% foi{khx.k }kjk fnukad 25-04-2001 dks dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuksa
ds foijhr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksus ls lsok lekfIr dks voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSaA bl voS/k lsok lekfIr ds
Qy&Lo:Ik foi{khx.k izkFkhZ dks ,deq'r 300]000@& ¼v{kjs rhu yk[k :-½ izfrdj jkf’k nks ekg esa Hkqxrku
djsxsaA fofgr vof/k esa Hkqxrku u gksus ij izkFkhZ bl jkf’k ij 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;ktnj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus
dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA
42- dsUnz ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
43- 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
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1115.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/59/2000)dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la-,y- 22012/387/99-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1115.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/59/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22012/387/99 – IR (CM-II)
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/59/2000
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Shivdas S/o. Manglu
Village Pamari-1, Tah : Anooppur,
Distt.- Shahdol Now Anooppur (MP)
Deceased & Represented by
Legal Representatives
Workman
Versus
The Sub Area Manager
Bhadra Sub Area, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
PO: Bhadra, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
Management
2412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 8th day of May 2024)
As per letter dated 10/02/2000 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-22012/387/99/IR(CM-II) dt. 10/02/2000. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Sub-Area Manager, Bhadra Sub-Area of SECL, PO: Bhadra, Distt. Shahdol
(MP) in terminating the services in respect of Sh. Shivdas S/o. Manglu, Ex- Loader, Harad Colliery w.e.f.
29.01.1997 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? ”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served.
Parties appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.
According to the workman union, the workman Shivdas S/o. Manglu was employed as Loader by
management and was posted in Harad Mines. He was issued a charge sheet on 29.09.1995 which he replied vide his
letter dated 10.10.1995. The management conducted an enquiry against him and he was removed from service vide
order of management dated 28/1-01/02/1997.
According to the workman union, a departmental enquiry was conducted by management against all the
principles of natural justice and against the rules. The Enquiry Officer wrongly held the charges proved against the
workman. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted the enquiry report and passed punishment disproportionate
to the charge.
Management has rebutted the allegations with a case that enquiry was rightly conducted, charges were
rightly held proved and punishment is also proportionate to the charges.
Following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated
17.02.2006.
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by management is just, legal and proper ? If not,
whether the management may be permitted to lead evidence for proving misconduct of workman ?
2. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?
On the basis of the evidence, the issue no.-1 was decided as preliminary issue in favour of workman
holding the departmental enquiry not legal and improper vide order dated 12.12.2012. This order is part of this
Award.
Thereafter, my learned Predecessor framed following additional issues vide his order dated 25.06.2013
holding that the other issues were not properly framed:-
1) Whether the misconduct alleged against workman is prove from evidence in enquiry proceedings or
findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse.
2) Whether the punishment of termination of service of the workman is proper ?
Incidentally, my learned Predecessor observed in the order dated 25.06.2013 that the departmental enquiry
has been found proper and legal. His this observation is against record. Order dated 12.12.2012 shows that the
departmental enquiry was held not legal and proper, hence was set aside. Hence, the issues framed by my learned
Predecessor vide his order dated 25.06.2013 are being rephrased as follows and order dated 25.06.2013 stands
amended accordingly:-
1) Whether management has successfully proved the charges from evidence before this Tribunal ?
2) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?
Management was given opportunity to lead evidence on the charges they examined Ishwardeen and Hari
Singh on oath in support of the charges, who have been cross examined by workman side. They also filed affidavits
of their witnesses Devesh Kumar and Rajkumar Sharma as their examination in chief. Firstly, opportunity of cross
examination of these two witnesses by workman side was closed. The workman side preferred M.P. No.- 3562/2019
before Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur which was decided by a Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court and the
workman union was given one more opportunity to cross examined these two management witnesses. Under the
order of Hon’ble High Court, these two witnesses also were cross examined on behalf of the workman union.
Management has filed the charge sheet, reply of charge sheet, punishment order and original enquiry papers, which
are Ex. M/1 to M/4. Management also filed and proved the land record, book first page, photocopy of Electoral Role
and electricity connection photocopy.
The workman side did not file evidence of any witness.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2413
It requires to be mentioned here that during pendency of the proceedings, the workman Shivdas died and
hence his legal representatives were brought on record.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel for workman. None was present from management. The
workman has filed written arguments which are part of record, no written argument has been filed by management. I
have gone through the record also.
Additional Issue No.-1:-
The charges against the workman were as follows:-
26.09:-
Furnishing wrong information with respect to name, age, father’s name, qualification etc. with
respect to employment.
26.01:-
Knowingly doing an act of theft, deceit or dishonest act with relation to the business or property of
the employer.
The settled law is that the standard of proof required to prove a charge during departmental enquiry and in
criminal trial is different. In the former, charge is to be proved to the extent of preponderance whereas in the later,
charge is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and
independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd.
vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255
Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond
all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who
upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to
prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.
State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India,
(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)
In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State
Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7
SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417
(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,
it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution
are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a
departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of
proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and
the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."
In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite
distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.
In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad
High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC
425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two
proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different
objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of
enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules
the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of
proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubts, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be
imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure
with respect to standard of proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of
departmental enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt"
has also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of
a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make
2414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar
to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case. "
In the case in hand, it comes out from perusal of record that the charge against the workman was that in
fact, he was Chhotelal S/o. Sandhu who any how got the employment registration card of Shivdas S/o. Manglu and
fraudulently got employment by impersonating himself to be Shivdas S/o. Manglu. Management has examined
Ishwardeen who is S/o. Shivdas he stated that his father had got employment with the management but he did not
join. Chhotelal, somehow got the appointment letter and other papers of Shivdas and joined the service of the
management by impersonating himself to be Shivdas whereas in fact he was Chhotelal S/o. Sandhu. This Chhotelal
was his neighbor. His father made a complaint before the management. This witness has filed the land record book
and Electoral Rolls as well is a receipt issued by Electricity Department and has proved them as Ex. M/5 to M/7. In
his cross examination, he states that he has 3 sisters also now married, hence their names are not in the Electoral
Rolls. Also states that his father had told him that Chhotelal got the papers of father of this witness i.e. Shivdas S/o.
Manglu and used these documents to get a employment.
The next witness Hari Singh examined by management is co-villager. He has corroborated the statement of
witness Ishwardeen s/o. Real Shivdas. Workman has preferred not to cross examined this witness. This witness has
filed and proved death certificate of Shivdas S/o. Manglu issued by him under his signature and seal in capacity of
the Pradhan of the village. According to this certificate, Shivdas S/o. Manglu died on 26.04.2007. The third
management witness is Devesh Kumar who was Personnel Assistant in the company at the time of filing affidavit.
This witness states that during the preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri D. Chakarawarthy, the workman had
given in writing under his signature on 08.09.1995 wherein he stated that he was in fact Chhotelal. This witness
further stated that he had recorded this statement of the workman. In his cross examination he states that the
statement was recorded with reference to a departmental preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri D. Chakrawarthy
Manager Personnel on the basis of complaint made to the management in this respect. This witness admits that his
statement was not recorded during departmental enquiry.
The fourth witness of management is Raj Kumar Sharma manager personnel who stated that one Shivdas
S/o. Manglu was selected for the post of Piece Rated Loader in 1974 through employment exchange. Chhotelal s/o.
Sandhu of same village got himself appointed personating for himself to be Shivdas S/o. Manglu. A complaint was
received by management and on preliminary enquiry this fact was found correct. The workman was issued a charge
sheet and departmental enquiry was conducted. This witness further states act during preliminary enquiry he had
visited the village on 28.11.2015 and 07.03.2016and met Harisingh, the Pradhan of the village and Deepak the
grandson of real Shivdas. They had corroborated the allegations in the complaint in their statements before him. In
his cross examination he has stated that the person named Deepak was summoned by the Sarpanch in the Panchayat
Office, he was about 20-25 years at that time. This Deepak had told him that his father’s name is Ishawardeen who
is the son of the real Shivdas. He further states that he had visited the village as directed by management.
The workman has file his affidavit under the name Shivdas S/o. Manglu and has stated in this his affidavit
that he is an illiterate person the management got his thumb impression on a blank paper on the pretext of resuming
his duty. In his cross examine, he states that he has no brother or sister and he does not remember the time of death
of his parent, he denies that he is in fact Chhotelal S/o. Sandhu and states that he is the only person named Shivdas
in his village. He further states that Shri Chakrawarthy got it his thumb impression on blank paper by telling him
that it was necessary was resuming his duty. He admits that he never complained of this fact.
Next witness examined by the workman is Keshav Sahu who states that he is the Vice Pradhan of the
village. The applicant workman is the real Shivdas. He further states that he is co-villager of Shivdas who has no
brother or sister and that there is no other person name Shivdas in his village.
From a comparative analysis of the statements of the witnesses produced from the both the sides, the
witnesses of management appear more reliable particularly in the light of recorded confession of the workman
where he admitted that in fact he was Chhotelal S/o. Sandhu who had got the employment papers of Shivdas S/o.
Manglu and got employment impersonating himself to be Shivdas S/o. Manglu.
Hence, in the light of above discussion, the charge against the workman under Clause – 26.09 referred
above, is held proved and issue no.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2:-
In the light of findings recorded above, when the initial appointment was result of fraud and deceit,
termination of services of the applicant cannot be held unjustified in law or fact.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the
scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2415
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in
exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
thereof.”
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be
disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching
a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after
examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past
conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their
sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the
department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.”
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a
long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized
the legal position in the following words:
“11.
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of
logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would
not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court
should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is
judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“8.
The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment
only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be
proved.”
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the
disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the
imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material
procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The
exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or
appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past
conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that
the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be
maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the
tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587
7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy
of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in
2416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test
to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary
matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to
be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G.
Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999)
5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000)
1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)
In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:
“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of
confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from
challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires
absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.”
In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of
confidence in the employee, observing that:
“Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management.
Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of
the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be
alleged and proved.”
In the case in hand management has successfully proved the charges as mentioned above. These charges
are punishable with major punishment including dismissal, termination or removal. Gaining employment on false
particulars is an act of moral turpitude. Considering the nature of charges in the light of above discussion and settled
principles on this point the punishment of his dismissal from service cannot be held excessive to the charge proved.
On the basis of above discussion the punishment is held not disproportionate to the charge and the
applicant is held entitled to no relief. Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.
Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-
AWARD
Holding the action on the part of management of Sub-Area Manager, Bhadra Sub-Area of SECL, PO
Bhadra, District Shahdol (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Shivdas S/o. Manglu, Ex Loader, Harad
Colliery w.e.f. 29.01.1997 legal and justified, the workman is entitled to no relief.
DATE:- 08/05/2024
P .K .SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1116.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/39/2016)dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 22012/12/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1116.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/39/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22012/12/2016– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2417
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
The General Secretary
Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation
Office Chirimiri, Distt.- Korea (CG)
Workman
Vs
The General Manager
Chirimiri Area of SECL
PO: West Chirimiri, Distt.-Korea (CG)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 15th day of May-2024)
As per letter dated 26/04/2016 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the
‘Act’) as per Notification No. L-22012/12/2016 IR (CM-II) dt. 26/04/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
“A.
Whether, the action on the part of General Manager of Chirimiri Colliery in not paying
attention towards the wrongful entry in the date of birth in case of Shri Biswajit Pandey, Pump Khalasi,
Category-IV of Civil Section of Kurasia, Sub Area of Chirimiri Colliery and later on not rectified the
actual date of birth who is going to be superannuated on 27.06.2016 is appropriate and justified ? If not,
what relief and action the workman concerned as espoused by the General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery
Workers Federation, Chirimiri, Distt.- Korea (CG) is entitled to ?
B.
Whether in the conciliation proceedings the management serving notice to go on
superannuation on 27.06.2016 in respect of Shri Biswajit Pandey, Pump Khalasi, Category-IV is
violative of Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act as pointed out by Union Representative ? If not, what relief the
concerned workman in the dispute is entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served.
Parties appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The dispute in the reference involves about the date of birth of the workman Biswajit Pandey who was
appointed by management as its employee. The workman claims his date of birth to be 27.06.1966 whereas
according to management his date of birth was recorded 27.06.1956 in their records. The management served a
superannuation notice to the workman informing him that he was to superannuate on 27.06.2016 on the basis of his
date of birth 27.06.1956. The workman filed a Writ Petition(s) No.-2302/2013 which was disposed by Hon’ble High
Court of C.G. vide order dated 07.08.2013 and the management was directed to make necessary an enquiry in the
matter and decide the issue with regard to correct date of birth of the workman in accordance with their own
instructions and policy in the matter of determination of age contained in Implementation Instructions 76 (in short
I.I. 76) as early as possible. Pursuant to this order an Age Determination Committee was constituted by management
and the matter was referred to the Committee to decide the issue. The Committee, after considering both the sides
submitted its report dated 03.02.2014 holding his date of birth 27.07.1956 as recorded with the management as his
correct date of birth.
The workman has challenged this report of Age Determination Committee mainly on the ground that it was
arbitrary and against rules particularly Mines Amendment Rules 1978 and I.I. 76 whereas management has defended
this report.
Both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence which are affidavit of the General Secretary as his
examination in chief. He has been cross examined from the side of management. The management has also filed
affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief, who has been cross examined from the side of workman union.
The workman union has filed and proved documents appointment offer of the workman Form-B service extract of
the workman as Ex. W/1 to W/3. Management has also filed these 3 documents as well medical examination report
prepared by the Medical Officer on Form-O under Rule 29 of Mines Rules at the time of first appointment of the
workman. Management has further filed LTC bills of the workman notice regarding correction in the service records
2418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
issued by management in 1987, Form-PS3 and PS4. Management has further filed and proved copy of order of
Hon’ble High Court of C.G., report of the Age Determination Committee constituted in compliance of order of
Hon’ble High Court as mentioned above.
I have heard argument Union Representative Shri Bhagwat Prasad Dubey and Shri Neeraj Kewat learned
Advocate for management. The workman side has filed written argument which is part of record, I have gone
through the written argument as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments following issue arises for determination:-
“Whether the report of Age Determination Committee deciding the date of birth of the workman Biswajit
Pandey has 27.07.1956 can be faulted in law or fact?
According to the workman union, the workman was issued appointment offer by management for his
appointment to the post of Piece Rated Worker under NCWA-3. This document has been relied upon by both the
sides. Clause-4c of this offer requires the workman to produce certificate of age, such as school certificate or proof
of age by Colliery Medical Officer apart from other documents. This is also not disputed that the workman was
examined by Medical Officer who prepared his report after medical examination declaring the workman medically
fit to join the post. This document is also relied by both parties. In this report, it has been mentioned that the
workman appears to be of 18 years of age on the date of his medical examination on 24.06.1984. In the Form-B of
the workman prepared by management on the basis of information provided by the workman his date of birth was
recorded 27.06.1956 as informed by the workman. The same date of birth is recorded in the service register, in
Form-PS3 & PS4 which are particulars of the family and nomination form filled in and signed by the workman. The
management has proved a general notice said to be issued by management in 1987 as a onetime measure to all its
employees with details of family, date of birth & other particulars recorded in the service documents of the
employees and invited objections from its employees if any entry was incorrect according to them and required to be
corrected. There appears an endorsement by the workman “JANMTITHI GALAT HAI”.
As it appears from the report of the Age Determination Committee, it observed that the age of the workman
recorded 18 years by the Medical Officer who examined him with respect to the appointment offer could not be
relied upon because it was an assessment of the Medical Officer on the basic looks of the workman and not after any
scientific investigation. The Age Determination Committee further found that in the Form-B, service register,
service excerpts dated 01.04.1987, LLTC claims, PS3 & PS4 the workman declared his date of birth as 27.07.1956
whereas in Form-B his date of birth is recorded as 27.06.1956. The Committee also took notice of the fact that the
workman did not take any further steps after service of notice/service excerpts on 01.04.1987 to get his date of birth
corrected. He did not file any educational certificate in support of his date of birth at the time of his appointment.
The Committee further noted that as per Radiological examination held on 03.10.2013 the age of the workman was
assessed in between 55 to 60 years.
The main objection of the Union representative on this report is that the first document is the medical
examination report of the Medical Officer who examined the workman before appointment and recorded his age 18
years at the time of examination on 24.06.1984. This report is prepared in the light of Rules 29-B of Mines Rules.
Further submitted that Form-B was not signed by the workman, hence the Age Determination Committee committed
mistake in not considering these factors, while deciding the date of birth of the workman.
I.I. 76 Clause-B which deals review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees is being
reproduced as follows :-
“Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.
i.
a)
In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary
Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board Middle Pass Certificate issued
by the Board of Education and / or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards
issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by
the said Universities/ Boards/ Institutions prior to the date of the employment.
i.
b)
Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates
where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.
Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are
available, the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic.
ii.
Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very
glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management
after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through
Determination Committee/ Medical Board.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2419
(C)
Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the
Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance
with the procedure mentioned in (B) (i) (a) or (B) (i) (b) above, the date of birth recorded in the
records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards
(untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age
recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination
Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age.
(D)
For determination of the age, the Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider the
evidence, available with the Colliery Management and/or adduced before the employee
concerned.
(E)
Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in
accordance with the requirement of “Medical Jurisprudence” and the Medical Board will as far
as possible indicate the accurate age, assessed and not approximately.
Now, considering the report of the Age Determination Committee in the light of I.I. 76 and Rule 29-B of
Mines Rules, the medical examination by the Medical Officer on 24.06.1984 which states the age of the workman at
18 years is not on any scientific investigation rather it is on the basis of external appearance and looks of the
workman at the time of his medical examination. Since, it is not based on any scientific investigation, the Age
Determination Committee cannot be held unjustified in ignoring this report. The LTC Form and Form-PS3 & PS4
have been filled and signed by the workman in which the date of birth of the workman is recorded 27.07.1956. The
fact that the workman did not taken any step for getting his date of birth corrected after he received his service
excerpts on 01.04.1987 in which his date of birth was wrongly recorded, coupled the other facts mentioned as above,
justify the report of Age Determination Committee. In these circumstances, I find no fault with the report of Age
Determination Committee and this issue is answered accordingly.
In the light of the above finding, the action of management in superannuating the workman on the basis of
his date of birth 27.06.1956 is held justified.
In the light of aforesaid findings, the action of management in superannuating the workman on the basis of
his date of birth 27.06.1956 during pendency of proceedings under Section 33 of the Act is also held justified in law.
The reference stands answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 15/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1117.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/75/2020)dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/75/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/75/2020
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Lakhan S/o. Shri Chow,
2420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
R/o. Ward No.-26, Paraspani
Bartunga, P.O. Chirimi
Distt.- Korea (CG)-497449
Workman
Vs
The Sub Area Manager,
SECL, Chirmiri UG Sub Area
P.O. Chirmiri Colliery,
Distt.- Korea (CG)-497773
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 10th day of May 2024)
As per letter dated 12/11/2020 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, 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 Notification No. RP-5(1-3)/2020-ES-III, dt. 12/11/2020. The dispute under
reference relates to:
“Whether the action on the part of management of SECL, Chirmiri Area, in dismissing the long
service of the workman namely Shri Lakhan S/o. Chow, some days before his normal retirement age is
legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. The
workman never appeared inspite of service on him on 25.02.2021 and did not file any statement of claim.
Management filed their written statement of defense.
In its written statement of defense, the management has taken a case that the workman was working as
Support Mistri in Chirimiri. A complaint dated 05.04.2017 was received from Satya Pujan Mishra RTI Activist that
he had got employment in the name of Lakhan S/o. Chow whereas his original name was Lakshman Mandal S/o.
Ekadashi Mandal. A letter was sent by management to S.P. of District Ganjam Orissa where his permanent address
was recorded in his service records, to verify and report about the complaint. He sent his verification report on
14.07.2017 according to which the real name of the workman was Lakshman Mandal S/o. Ekadashi Mandal. A
charge sheet was issued to him on 08.05.2018. He submitted his reply on 18.05.2018. Management decided to
conduct an enquiry and ordered a departmental enquiry against the workman on 31.07.2018, the workman
participated in the enquiry. He produced his evidence and cross examined management witnesses. The enquiry
report submitted his report dated 08.05.2018 holding the charges proved against the workman. The reply of the
workman on the enquiry report was found not satisfactory and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of
dismissal on 29.08.2018, which is based on evidence in the enquiry and proportionate to the charge.
During the course of the proceedings, the workman never appeared hence, the reference proceeded ex-parte
against him.
The management filed affidavit of its witness Santosh Kumar who corroborated the case of management
and proved the enquiry papers. This witness was not cross examined by workman.
At the stage of argument, the workman did not appear. I have heard argument of learned Counsel
Shri Neeraj Kewat for workman and have gone through the record.
Following points arise for determination in the case in hand:-
1) Whether the departmental enquiry was legally conducted ?
2) Whether the charges are proved ?
3) Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges ?
Point No.-1 :-
The burden to prove point no.-1 is on workman. On perusal of uncross examined affidavit of management
witness and enquiry papers, I find no violation of any principle of natural justice or rules of procedure for
conducting enquiry, hence point no.-1 is answered accordingly.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2421
Point No.-2 :-
On perusal of enquiry papers, there is nothing to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, hence his
finding regarding proof of charges is held proved.
Point no.-3 :-
In this case the charge proved against the workman is furnishing false information with regard to age name,
father’s name, qualification etc. by the workman with respect to his employment which is a major misconduct under
Clause 26.9 of the Certified Standing Orders. This charge provides major punishment of dismissal. Keeping in view
the nature of the charge proved, the punishment is found not excessive to the proved misconduct and there is no
occasion to interfere with the punishment order.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman
and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 10/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1118.—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 (सन्िभव सं्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y- 22012/98/2005-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1118.—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.10/2006) 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 05/06/2024
[No. L-22012/98/2005 – 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. 10 OF 2006
PARTIES: Pritam Singh
(represented by his dependent wife Charan Kaur)
Vs.
Management of Poniati Workshop 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.
2422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated:
26.04.2024
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its
Order No. L-22012/98/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 12.06.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Poniati Workshop of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Poniati Workshop, M/s ECL, Jamuria of dismissal of Shri
Pritam Singh is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/98/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 12.06.2006 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 10 of 2006 was registered on
19.06.2006 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.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative for the workman and Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for
the management of ECL have appeared and filed their written statement on 02.12.2009. In gist the fact of the case as
per the written statement of the workman is that Pritam Singh, was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields
Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and posted as a Driver at Ratibati Workshop. He was wrongly and illegally
dismissed from his service by the company. Pritam Singh was chargesheeted vide Charge Sheet No.
ECL/PW/Chargesheet/91/1387 dated 30.12.1991 on an allegation of theft of company’s property. Pritam Singh
submitted his reply but the management of the company ordered a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted
an enquiry and held the workman guilty of the charge. During pendency of the proceeding management issued an
order of transfer of Pritam Singh bearing order no. ECL/CMD/C-6B/Trf/62 dated 08.01.1992 on his transfer he
joined at Rajmahal Project. The management simultaneously lodged an FIR before police and a specific case of theft
was registered before the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Asansol Court. On the basis of Departmental Proceeding
management dismissed Pritam Singh from service and communicate the order of dismissal to him vide Ref No.
ECL/PW/Displ.action/94/2006 dated 03.10.1994. According to the union, management awarded three punishments;
firstly, an FIR was lodged at Police Station and police arrested the workman who was subsequently released on bail,
secondly, an order of transfer from Poniati Workshop to Rajmahal was issued and thirdly, an extreme punishment of
dismissal from service was imposed.
3.
It is contended that, at the end of court proceeding Pritam Singh was not found guilty of the charge and he
was acquitted from the case. However, in the Departmental Proceeding the Agent of Poniati Workshop issued an
order dated 03.10.1994 dismissing Pritam Singh from his service, when the workman was already transferred to
Rajmahal. It is urged that a workman who is not on the roll of Poniati Workshop cannot be dismissed by the Agent
of Poniati Workshop and the order of dismissal required to be issued by the Agent of Rajmahal, where Pritam Singh
was posted.
4.
During pendency of the criminal case before the Hon’ble Court at Asansol, the union did not raise any
dispute. After an order of acquittal was passed an Industrial Dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol and the matter was thereafter referred to this Tribunal for adjudication as to
whether dismissal of Pritam Singh from his service is just and proper. The union urged that the aggrieved workman
was not served with the Enquiry Proceeding and report of the Enquiry Officer before his dismissal. It is contended
that the management should not have taken any action before disposal of the criminal case. It was open for the
management to take recourse to one course of action, either by issuance of Charge Sheet or by lodging FIR. The
management further did not follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by not issuing the 2nd
Show Cause Notice to the workman before issuing order of dismissal. It is the case of the union is that Pritam Singh
died on 22.12.2006 and his wife requested the management of the company to pay her the legal dues like gratuity.
According to the union dismissal from service is an extreme punishment and the same is not awarded to anyone
without enquiring the fact carefully. According to the union the service of Pritam Singh under the company was
unblemished and the order of dismissal passed against him is liable to be set aside and Pritam Singh should be
considered to be in service of the company from 31.09.1994 by declaring the order of dismissal as illegal and his
legal heir should be paid full back wages during the period of his idleness from 03.10.1994 till the date of
superannuation from the company i.e. 01.07.2000.
5.
The Management of ECL contested the case by filing their written statement. The specific case of the
management is that Pritam Singh was chargesheeted on 30.12.1991 under Clause 17 (i)(a)(q)(r) of the Standing
Order applicable to him. He replied to the charge levelled against him and a Domestic Enquiry was held in which
the workman participated and availed reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
report holding him guilty and on the basis of such enquiry Pritam Singh, who was posted at Rajmahal OCP was
dismissed from service. It is their case that there has been undue delay of ten years in raising the Industrial Dispute
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2423
and the same is liable to be dismissed. Management has urged that the union has no locus standi to represent the
workman as he was not a member of the union.
6.
Further case of the management is that the workman committed an offence of theft of property of ECL
which is a serious offence and there is no scope of exhibiting leniency. It is urged that due to such misconduct the
workman was transferred to Rajmahal OCP under Rajmahal Area and an FIR was lodged against the workman at
Jamuria Police Station, giving rise to a specific case under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, which
ultimately ended in acquittal. The management urged that the Industrial Dispute is not maintainable and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
7.
On the death of Pritam Singh a petition was filed on 29.05.2013 for substitution of Charan Kaur, as his
legal heir. Union filed a rejoinder on 06.02.2017 reiterating the facts. Charan Kaur, wife of Late Pritam Singh was
examined as Workman Witness – 1. She filed an affidavit-in-chief on 10.02.2016 and adduced evidence on behalf of
her deceased husband. It is stated in her affidavit-in-chief that the management issued a Charge Sheet against Pritam
Singh on 30.12.1991 and he submitted his reply and the management thereafter appointed an Enquiry Officer who
conducted the enquiry in respect of the charge. The management also lodged an FIR before police. On holding the
Enquiry, management dismissed her husband and an order of dismissal was communicated to him on 03.10.1994.
The witness claimed that her husband was wrongfully dismissed from service and his dismissal should be declared
as illegal and full wages should be paid to the dependent from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation
with other consequential benefits. During evidence the following documents were produced :
(i)
Photocopy of Charge Sheet was produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Photocopy of order of dismissal issued by the Agent of Poniati Workshop, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Photocopy of Death Registration Certificate of Pritam Singh, as Exhibit W-3.
8.
From the cross-examination of WW-1 it transpires that the Charge Sheet and the order of dismissal in
respect of Pritam Singh were issued from Poniati Workshop. She denied the suggestion that her husband was
dismissed in proper manner. Mangal Singh, Satnam Singh, Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh, the three sons of Late
Pritam Singh and Balbinder Kour and Lakhbinder Kour, two married daughters of Late Pritam Singh have filed their
affidavit-in-chief, wherein they have stated that they authorized Charan Kaur to receive all financial benefits of their
father.
9.
Management of ECL examined Mr. Pragyanand Pandey, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Poniati Workshop
as Management Witness – 1. In course of his evidence he has produced the following documents in support of
management’s case :
(i)
Photocopy of the Charge Sheet dated 30.12.1991 has been produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Photocopy of the Reply dated 15.01.1992, in three pages, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Photocopy of the Notice of Enquiry dated 27.03.1992 and 02.04.1992 issued by Mr. D. K. Banerjee,
Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-3 and M-3/A respectively.
(iv)
Photocopy of the Enquiry Proceeding, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Photocopy of the Enquiry Report dated 27.07.1993 and 26.07.1993, as Exhibit M-5 and 5/A (in three
pages collectively).
(vi)
The witness admitted that no 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman. The witness also
averred that the Agent of Poniati Workshop passed an order of dismissal with approval of competent
authority of ECL. Photocopy of the dismissal order dated 03.10.1994 has been marked as Exhibit
M-6.
(vii)
Photocopy of the dismissal order dated 25.10.1996 issued by the Agent of Rajmahal OCP is produced
as Exhibit M-7.
10.
In his cross-examination MW-1 deposed that an FIR was lodged on 20.12.1991 giving rise to G. R. Case
No. 1734/91 under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Tinu Khan, Md. Afjal, Imtiaz Mia, Ram Kishna
Sarma, Chemilal Show, Brijbehari Singh and Lala Nunia were the co-accused persons. The witness stated that there
must be a seizure list in this case supporting charge under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code which relates to
recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. The management witness could not state the reason
of delay in issuing Charge Sheet and deposed that the content of the Charge Sheet regarding place of recovery of
stolen goods were correct. Witness deposed that Mr. N. I. Khan, Presenting Officer, stated in his report that on
20.12.1991 when he went to Poniati Workshop at 07.00 a.m., he received information from the Foreman In-charge
of Electrical Department that some Secondary Coil of Transformer had been stolen by the miscreants in the night of
19.12.1991 along with other material. The witness admitted that the Presenting Officer did not examine any witness
nor did he produced document to substantiate the charge. The management witness admitted that no 2nd Show Cause
2424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Notice was issued to the charged employee and in course of enquiry on 10.01.1992 the workman was transferred to
Rajmahal OCP. According to MW-1 after acquittal from criminal case Pritam Singh was never reinstated under ECL
and Gratuity and Provident Fund dues have not been disbursed. The witness at the end however, denied that
dismissal of Pritam Singh was unjustified and illegal.
11.
On 21.11.2023 Mr. Pragyanand Pandey (MW-1) was further examined and he stated before the Tribunal
that he has not been able to produce the document of competent authority regarding dismissal of Pritam Singh. He
also stated that in G. R. Case No. 1734/91 at Asansol Court, Pritam Singh was acquitted from the charge of theft and
a copy of the judgement was produced as Exhibit M-8. The management witness admitted that after acquittal of
Pritam Singh from the charge, the management preferred no appeal against the judgement of acquittal nor did it take
any step for reinstatement of Pritam Singh. Management witness denied that the punishment imposed against the
charged employee was disproportionate or that he was illegally dismissed from service.
12.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, representing the dependent wife of the deceased employee argued that Mr. N. I. Khan,
the Presenting Officer stated before the Enquiry Officer that on 20.12.1991, when he reported for duty at Poniati
Workshop at 7.00 a.m., he received information from the Electrical Department through Foreman Incharge that
Secondary Coil of Transformer had been taken away by miscreants on the night of 19.12.1991 along with other
materials. Thereafter Mr. Khan lodged an FIR at Jamuria Police Station to the effect that the Transformer Coil with
approximate weight of 200 Kilograms along with other materials were stolen. Mr. Khan stated that the Officer in
charge of Jamuria Police Station went to Jamuria Bazar along with police personnels to search out the stolen
materials. The Police Officer met the agent of Poniati Workshop on the same day and asked him to call the Security
Guards and Armed Guard namely, Md. Afzal Hussain, Tinu Khan, Imtiaz Mia, and Ram Kishna Sarma. The
materials which were recovered from the shop of Chunnilal Shaw of Jamurai Bazar were asked to be identified and
Mr. N. I. Khan identified the recovered materials. It is stated by Mr. Khan that on 23.12.1991 the O.C. Jamuria
Police Station also recovered 200 Kilograms of Copper Coil from the compound of the quarters of Pritam Singh.
The charged employee was arrested. Mr. Rakesh Kumar referred to the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Fifth Court, Asansol in G. R. Case No. 1734/91, wherein all eight accused persons including Pritam
Singh were acquitted on the ground that prosecution did not examine Mr. N. I. Khan, the FIR maker. Mr. Kumar
inter alia argued that apart from Pritam Singh other accused persons who were also employees of ECL were not
chargesheeted and no proceeding was initiated against them. The union representative vehemently argued that the
statement of Mr. N. I. Khan before the Enquiry Officer has no force as it was hearsay evidence and he has no direct
information regarding occurrence and alleged recovery of the stolen property. Accordingly, the order of dismissal
passed against Pritam Singh without issuance of any 2nd Show Cause Notice is bad in law and the order of dismissal
without compliance of mandatory provision, based upon hearsay statement is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set
aside. Mr. Kumar argued that Pritam Singh should be deemed to be in service from the date of his dismissal on
03.10.1994 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 01.07.2000. It is urged that full back wages for the entire period
along with all other consequential retirement benefits may be paid to Charan Kaur, the wife of the deceased
employee.
13.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of ECL submitted that a case of theft in the
workshop was reported in the night of 19.12.1991 and Mr. N. I. Khan, company’s representative also lodged an FIR
before Jamuria Police Station on the basis of which a specific criminal case was initiated. During investigation
Police recovered some stolen property of the employer company from the premises of Pritam Singh and after
holding enquiry, he was found guilty and accordingly dismissed him from service. Learned advocate argued that a
Departmental Proceeding was held independent of the criminal proceeding, therefore despite acquittal of the charged
employee in the criminal case due to lack of evidence, there was sufficient material before the Enquiry Officer to
hold the charged employee guilty and there was no error in dismissing the charged employee, even after his transfer.
14.
I have perused the scheduled reference, written statement submitted by the union and management, also
considered the evidence on record, report of Enquiry Proceeding as well as copy of the judgment passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Fifth Court, Asansol, in G. R. Case No. 1734/91 under Section 379 and 411 of the
Indian Penal Code. On a close reading of the Enquiry Proceeding and the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, stemming from the same offence / misconduct of theft, I find that Mr. N. I. Khan, Manager, Poniati
Workshop performed the duty of the Presenting Officer in the Departmental Enquiry. From the statement made by
the Presenting Officer on 16.04.1992, it transpires that on 20.12.1991, when he reported at Poniati Workshop at
07.00 a.m. for his duty he received information from the Electrical Department via Foreman Incharge that
Secondary Coil of Transformer had been stolen by the miscreants along with other materials in the night of
19.12.1991. He rushed to the Police Station along with the Security Incharge and lodged an FIR in the Police
Station. The Officer-in-Charge, Jamuria Police station visited Poniati Workshop on 20.12.1991 and examined the
Security Guards and Armed Guard and recorded their statements. Some recovery was made from the shop of
Chunnilal Shaw of Jamuria Bazar which were identified as the properties of Poniati Workshop. Mr. N. I. Khan
further stated before the Enquiry Officer on 23.12.1991 that Officer-in-Charge, Jamuria Police Station recovered
200 Kilograms of Copper Coil from the quarter compound of Pritam Singh, the driver and arrested the driver.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2425
15.
It further appears that during cross-examination of Mr. N. I. Khan by Pritam Singh, as to on what basis he
stated that the Transformer Coil was recovered from his quarters, the Presenting Officer stated that the police had
told him about the same. This statement gives us a clear view of the matter that Mr. Khan had no personal
knowledge except the reporting made to him by the Police regarding recovery. In course of Enquiry Proceeding no
witness of seizure or recovery was examined by the Enquiry Officer. Pritam Singh, the charged employee in his
statement deposed that he did not know that there was an incident of theft at Poniati Workshop on 19.12.1991. He
was in his quarters at 08.00 a.m. on 20.12.1991 when he learnt about the incident which took place in the previous
night. The police arrested him on 23.12.1991 on an allegation that material was recovered from the compound of his
quarters. Pritam Singh denied the charge of such recovery from his possession. The Enquiry Officer in his report
dated 27.07.1993 (Exhibit M-5) stated that the Enquiry Report dated 26.07.1993 in three pages was being produced.
On a close scrutiny, I find the Enquiry Report dated 26.07.1993 has been marked as Exhibit M-5/A collectively in
three pages.
16.
On a close reading of the Enquiry Report I find that the allegation which made by Mr. N. I. Khan against
the charged employee are hearsay in nature which is not tenable under the law for holding the workman guilty of
charge. The Enquiry Officer stated that the charged worker neither produced any document nor examined any
witness in his defence during enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Officer observed that from the statement of the
Presenting Officer it was found that the charged workman was arrested by the police in connection to recovery of
stolen materials from compound of his quarters on 23.12.1991. This observation of the Enquiry Officer based upon
arrest of Pritam Singh without any evidence of recovery does not support the management case for holding the
charged employee guilty of the offence of theft. In the Enquiry Proceeding Hardeo Yadav, Security Guard was
examined on 16.04.1992. He stated that he was on duty at the main gate of Poniati Workshop. In the midnight
between 19.12.1991 to 20.12.1991, Pritam Singh, Driver, Tinu Khan, Ram Kishna Sarma, and Lala Nunia, Security
Guards snatched the key of the main gate from him forcibly and entered the workshop by opening the main gate.
They took out the key of the Electrical Shop from Key Board, opened the door of the Electrical Shop and took out
Transformer Coil and took the same in the Jeep driven by Pritam Singh, the driver. He tried to resist them but they
threaten to kill him, if he reported the matter to anybody. Hardeo Yadav further stated that Ram Kishna Sarma
showed his revolver and threatened him that he would shoot him if he resisted them.
17.
The Enquiry Proceeding reveals that the statement made by Hardeo Yadav, Security Guard was in
connection with a Charge Sheet dated 30.12.1991 issued to Hardeo Yadav. Therefore, it is apparent that statement
made by Hardeo Yadav was not in connection with the enquiry arising out of Charge Sheet No.
ECL/PW/Chargesheet/91/1387 dated 30.12.1991, issued to Pritam Singh. The statement of Hardeo Yadav cannot be
used against Pritam Singh as he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The settled principle of
law is that the statement of a co-accused against accomplice in the same procedure would be relevant if the accused
makes confession affecting such other person and himself. In the commission of the offence no such statement is
made by Hardeo Yadav implicating himself and Pritam Singh. Furthermore, in matter of grave allegation I find no
corroborative evidence from any other witness. In my considered view Mr. D. K. Banerjee, Enquiry Officer has
failed to appreciate the legal evidence in its true spirit. He has misplaced the burden of proof upon the charged
employee to the effect that he did not adduce any evidence and based his findings on an isolated statement of
another charged employee made in a separate proceeding where he disowned his involvement. It is also evident
from the statement of the management witness that no 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the charged employee
before issuance of order of dismissal. The order dated 03.10.1994 issued by the Agent of Poniati Workshop refers to
an order of dismissal bearing No. ECL/CMO/C-60/94/DA/SPL/3265 dated 27/30.09.1994 as approved by the
Director (Personnel), ECL. No such copy of order was produced by the management. It appears to me that the order
of dismissal was not passed by the competent authority i.e. the Disciplinary Authority in this case. The management
of the company appears to have violated the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Union of India and Others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], 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.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was enforced by the Coal India Limited by way of
issuing a Circular bearing No. CIL C-5A(vi)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994, wherein it has been clearly laid down that
the charged employee had to be supplied with Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report and a 2nd Show Cause Notice
had to be issued to him before taking any final decision of removing him from service. In my considered view such
mandatory procedures have not been complied and the Enquiry Officer appears to have reached his conclusion on
the basis of information and hearsay evidence without making any effort to find out the truth as to from whose
custody the stolen materials have been recovered.
2426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18.
It would now be apposite to consider the contents of the judgment dated 07.03.2000 passed in G. R. Case
No. 1734/91 under Section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, which arose out of the selfsame occurrence. From
the findings of the learned Magistrate, it is gathered that Mr. N. I. Khan, the de-facto complainant was not examined
in the case. The contents of FIR were not proved. Kashmir Singh, PW-1, and Ranglal Sharma, PW-2, said to be
seizure witnesses did not adduce any evidence that any seizure was made in their presence from the possession of
any of the accused persons. Learned Magistrate held that there was no material on record to establish that the seized
articles were identified by the complainant at any point of time. It was held that the accused persons were found
not guilty and they were acquainted from the case. Since alamats (seized goods) were not identified or claimed by
Poniati Workshop, they were confiscated to the state. With such materials on record, I find that the order of
dismissal passed by the management against Pritam Singh is without any base, the same is arbitrary, improper,
unjustified and is not sustainable under law. In the light of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the
order of dismissal passed against Pritam Singh on 03.10.1994 (Exhibit M-6) and 25.10.1994 (Exhibit M-7) are set
aside. Pritam Singh, the aggrieved workman having died on 22.12.2006 shall be deemed to have been in service of
the company from 03.10.1994 till the date of his notional superannuation on 01.07.2000. Charan Kaur, wife of the
deceased employee shall be entitled to receive all the retiral and consequential relief. It appears that Pritam Singh
did not render any service to the company during this long period of nearly six years. There is no evidence on record
that he did not work for any gain. Under such circumstances I find it appropriate to allow fifty percent (50%) of
back wages of Pritam Singh from 03.10.1994 to 01.07.2000 in favour of Charan Kaur, the widow of the deceased
workman. The management of the company is directed to make payment of outstanding dues to the wife of the
deceased employee within one month from the date of communication of the order.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the petitioner on contest against the management of ECL.
The impugned orders of dismissal of Pritam Singh dated 03.10.1994 and 25.10.1994 are set aside. He shall be
deemed to have been in service from 03.10.1994 till the date of his notional superannuation (01.07.2000). Charan
Kaur, the wife of the deceased workman shall be entitled to receive fifty percent (50%) of the back wages of the
workman from 03.10.1994 till 01.07.2000 along with consequential relief and retiral dues. The entire amount shall
be paid to the widow of the deceased within one month from the date of communication of the Award. Let an award
be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1119.—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
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभव सं्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/108/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.14/2020) 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 05/06/2024.
[No. L-22012/108/2019– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2427
REFERENCE CASE NO. 14 OF 2020
PARTIES: Seven Dhangar
Vs.
Management of Kajora Area 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:
10.05.2024
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-22012/108/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the dismissal of Shri Seven Dhangar, Ex- General Mazdoor from service on 21.9.2015 and
denial to reinstatement by the management of M/s. ECL, as raised by Colliery Mazdoor Congress (HMS), Asansol,
is just and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from when? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/108/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 14 of 2020 was registered on
24.02.2020 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
The management of Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) filed their
written statement through the Agent of Madhusudanpur Colliery on 05.12.2022. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate
appeared on behalf of the management of ECL. The dismissed workman filed written statement on 22.02.2023
through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative. The fact of the case according to the union is that Seven Dhangar,
General Mazdoor bearing No. 124128 was posted at Madhusudanpur Colliery under Kajora Area ECL as a
permanent employee. Due to illness the workman could not attend his duty from 20.04.2015. After his recovery he
went to the colliery and requested the management for allowing him to join duty but the management did not permit
him to join and issued a Charge Sheet bearing No. MSP/P&IR/2015/6/1682 dated 18.06.2015. Seven Dhangar
submitted a reply to the Charge Sheet, informing that he was under medical treatment during his absence, which was
unintentional. The management not being satisfied with the reply, initiated a Domestic Enquiry by appointing an
Enquiry Officer. The charged employee participated in the Enquiry Proceeding where he disclosed that he was under
medical treatment under company’s Kajora Area Hospital from 03.04.2015 and the Doctor advised him for taking
rest for seven days. Doctor further advised him to take up job on the surface. He was allowed to join duty on
23.04.2015 but was advised to take further opinion from Central Hospital at Kalla. Seven Dhangar did not join duty
for his underground job and proceeded for his further treatment at Central Hospital, Kalla. The management did not
grant his sick leave for medical treatment which continues up to 03.06.2015. The management did not allow him to
join after he reported for duty and issued a Charge Sheet on 18.06.2015. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty for
his absence from duty from 24.04.2015 to 18.06.2015. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty for his absence from
24.04.2015 to 18.06.2015 i.e. for 1 month and 23 days during the period of his illness while he was under medical
treatment at company’s hospital. The management awarded extreme punishment of dismissal disregarding the
ground of absence. It is contended that Seven Dhangar is a member of Scheduled Cast community, a weaker section
of the society and has no source of income for maintain his livelihood. According to him the punishment awarded to
him is disproportionate to the nature of offence and the management should have awarded lighter punishment. It is
prayed that the order of dismissal should be set aside. Seven Dhangar should be reinstated to his employment under
the company and full back wages should be paid to him.
2428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
The contrary case of the management is that Seven Dhangar was posted as an Underground Loader at
Madhabpur Colliery under ECL. He was a habitual absentee and was reprimanded several times for his poor
attendance. On the last occasion he absented on and from 24.04.2015 without any information or prior approval of
the leave from the appropriate authority. The management chargesheeted him on 18.06.2015 under Clause 26.23 for
his habitual absence and under Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Order for his absence from duty beyond ten days
without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause. The matter was referred for domestic enquiry and the workman
participated in the Enquiry Proceeding. The charge of unauthorized absence was proved beyond doubt and based
upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer the workman was dismissed from his service vide letter No.
KA:APM(IC):C-6:Dismissal:431 dated 21.09.2015. A 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman before his
dismissal and he replied to the same.
4.
Management of ECL contended that the Certified Standing Order of the company provides opportunity to
the workman to appeal against any order of punishment within a period of forty-five days from the date of issuance
of the order of dismissal but in this case the workman did not appeal within the stipulated period, which implies that
the punishment is binding upon him. Further case of the management is that the attendance of the workman in the
preceding six years was bad and the workman was a habitual absentee. Out of 305 days available for work in a year,
the workman in the year 2010 attended duty on 93 days, in the year 2011 he worked for 89 days, in the year 2012 for
107 days, in the year 2013 for 61 days, in the year 2014 he did not attended duty for a single day, and in the year
2015 for 26 days. For his unauthorized absence the workman was previously punished with stoppage of 1 SPRA /
increment vide letter dated 24.04.2010, 2 SPRA / increments vide letter 23.08.2011 and demotion to the grade of
General Mazdoor in Category – I without any pay protection vide letter dated 26.02.2015. It is the case of the
management that when a workman frequently absented from duty his name cannot be maintained in the roll
indefinitely and the post cannot be allowed to remain vacant. It is urged by the management that the punishment
imposed upon the workman is proportionate to his misconduct and the workman is not entitled to any relief in this
case.
5.
In support of his case Seven Dhangar has filed an affidavit-in-chief on 29.05.2023 and examined himself as
Workman Witness – 1. In course of his evidence the workman has produced a copy of the order of dismissal dated
21.09.2015 which has been marked as Exhibit W-1 and copies of the documents relating to medical treatment in five
pages, which have been collectively marked as Exhibit W-2.
6.
In course of his cross-examination the dismissed workman stated that he was medically treated at Kajora
Hospital and was declared medically fit after treatment. As he was advised by doctor not to work underground, he
did not perform duty. The workman also admitted that in the year 2014 he did not attended duty for a single day.
7.
Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel), Madhusudanpur Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL filed his
affidavit-in-chief and was examined as Management Witness – 1. In his examination-in-chief the management
witness deposed that Seven Dhangar was dismissed from service on 21.09.2015 for unauthorized absence from duty
from 24.04.2015 to 18.06.2015. Management witness produced several documents which have been admitted in
evidence as follows :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 18.06.2015 has been marked as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Reply to the Charge Sheet submitted by the workman stating reasons, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Medical Certificate dated 16.06.2015 of the workman, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the appointment letter of the Enquiry Officer dated 05.08.2015, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 06.08.2015, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding and report in four pages have been collectively marked as Exhibit
M-6.
(vii)
Copy of the 2nd Show Cause Notice dated 26.08.2015, as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of the Reply to the 2nd Show Cause Notice submitted by the workman, as Exhibit M-8.
(ix)
Copy of the Note Sheet dated 13.09.2015 initiated by the Agent of Madhusudanpur Colliery
proposing disciplinary action, as Exhibit M-9.
(x)
Copy of the order of dismissal dated 21.09.2015, as Exhibit M-10.
8.
In course of cross-examination the management witness deposed that the 2nd Show Cause Notice, copy of
Enquiry Report and findings were supplied to the workman. There is no case of the workman that 2nd Show Cause
Notice was not served upon him along with findings of the Enquiry Officer. The witness also deposed that the order
of dismissal was issued by the Agent on approval of the General Manager and the Note Sheet bears the approval.
The witness categorically deposed that the workman was dismissed from service not only for his unauthorized
absence for more than 10 days but his past conduct of unauthorized absence was also taken into consideration. In
course of cross-examination the witness asserted that management was not aware that the workman was advised by
the Area Medical Officer of ECL for light duty or as the person was not assigned lighter duty he remained absent.
The witness denied that the period of absence was covered by the medical certificate submitted by the workman.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2429
9.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative, arguing the case on behalf of the dismissed workman submitted
that the workman was unable to attend his duty due to illness and in support of the same he submitted medical
documents before the Enquiry Officer which was not taken into consideration and a disproportionate, harsh, and
extreme punishment of dismissal was imposed against the employee for his absence from duty for a period of 1
month and 23 days only and was prevented from attending his duty due to his indisposition. It is contended that the
order of dismissal was issued by the Area Personnel Manager (IC), Kajora Area on 21.09.2015 was not binding
upon the workman as it was not passed by the General Manager of the Area, who is the controlling Authority.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL, in reply, submitted that the workman was a
habitual absentee and charge under clause 26.23 of Certified Standing Order for unauthorized absence and Clause
26.29 for unauthorized absence for a period of more than ten days have been proved against the workman. It is
submitted that the workman remained absent on various pretext and did not inform the appropriate authority prior to
his absence. In respect of the plea taken by the workman that he was prevented from attending his duty due to his
illness learned advocate referring to the Charge Sheet (Ext. M-1) submitted that the workman absented from duty
from 24.04.2015 until the Charge Sheet was issued on 18.06.2015. In his reply to the Charge Sheet the workman
stated that he was suffering from Tuberculosis for seven years. He claimed to be under treatment of a local doctor
from 27.04.2015 to 15.06.2015 and was declared fit for duty on 26.06.2015. Management witness produced a copy
of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. S. Ghosh, a Registered Medical Practitioner dated 16.06.2015 where he
certified that Seven Dhangar was under his treatment from 27.04.2015 to 15.06.2015 and was suffering from fever.
In the written statement the workman simply stated that he was unable to attend duty due to his illness form
24.04.2015 without naming his ailment. In examination-in-chief the workman sated that he was suffering from
Epilepsy for which he could not attend his duty. Therefore, the workman made contradictory statement regarding the
nature of his ailment which is self-destructive. Learned advocate for the management submitted that the workman
participated in the Enquiry Proceeding and admitted the charges levelled against him without being able to satisfy
the reasons of his absence for such a long period. The workman was accordingly found guilty of charge framed and
on approval of the General Manager in his Note Sheet dated 16.09.2015 (Exhibit M-9) the workman was removed
from the service of the company by Office Order dated 21.09.2015 (Exhibit M-10). Learned advocate argued that
the punishment was proportionate to the misconduct of the workman and there is no reason to interfered with the
order of punishment.
11.
I have considered the facts and circumstances in this case as well as evidence adduced by the parties and
argument advanced on behalf of the workman and management. Admittedly, the workman had remained absent
from duty from 24.04.2015 till issuance of Charge Sheet on 18.06.2015 without any prior intimation or approval,
thereby the charge of unauthorized absence from duty beyond ten days without sanctioned leave has been proved
and charge under Clause 26.29 of Certified Standing Order has been established beyond doubt. In course of enquiry,
it is found that the workman physically attended his work for 107 days in the year 2012, 61 days in the year 2013,
Nil in the year 2014, and 26 days in the year 2015. The workman did not venture to cross-examine the management
representative to refute such charges. At the time of his examination before the Enquiry Officer, Seven Dhangar did
not deny the charge and on the other hand he tried to reason out his absence on the ground of illness. The Enquiry
Proceeding has been produced as Exhibit M-6 (in four pages) and on the basis of such Enquiry Proceeding the Agent
of Madhusudanpur Colliery issued a 2nd Show Cause Notice to the workman and supplied him with a copy of
enquiry proceed and report of the Enquiry Officer seeking explanation. The 2nd Show Cause Notice was marked as
Exhibit M-7. The workman received the Notice by putting his signature on the back of the 2nd Show Cause Notice.
On 08.09.2015 the workman submitted a reply stating that he was unable to attend his normal work for the last three
years as he was suffering from Tuberculosis. He further stated that he recovered from his illness and wanted to join
his duty. Exhibit M-8, the reply of the workman, once again corroborates the charge levelled against the workman.
The workman claimed to have suffered from Tuberculosis, Epilepsy, and Fever during the period of his absence but
he has failed to produce proper medical documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer to establish the fact that
he was prevented from attending duty for such ailments. The workman claimed to have been under medical
treatment under Kajora Area Hospital and produced Ticket for outdoor patients in five pages, which have been
marked as Exhibit W-2. It appears from the face of the document that the workman was under treatment from
03.04.2015 and was declared fit for duty on 23.04.2015. The charge levelled against him was from 24.04.2015 till
18.06.2015. The workman therefore did not attend his duty from 24.04.2015, even after he was declared fit for duty.
The patient approached the Central Hospital at Kalla on 03.06.2015 and 10.06.2015 but the Hospital declined to
issue any Sick Certificate in his favour. the workman then approached a Registered Medical Practitioner who
certified that the workman was under his treatment from 27.04.2015 to 15.06.2015 due to fever. This document
issued by Dr. S. Ghosh (Exhibit M-3) therefore cannot be relied upon. The workman ran from pillar to post to make
out his case but could not obtain supportive document and ultimately admitted the charge.
12.
In view of the facts and circumstances I hold that the Enquiry Proceeding held by the management was in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and ample opportunity was provided to the workman for making out
his case. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, holding the workman guilty of the charge therefore suffers from no
infirmity. A 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman before his dismissal. The General Manager, the
controlling authority of the charged workman approved the punishment of dismissal in his Note Sheet dated
2430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.09.2005 (Exhibit M-9) and in accordance with the decision a letter of dismissal was issued on 21.09.2015. I do
not find any illegality, inconstancy or incongruity in the process of dismissing the workman on the basis of charge
proved against him. The punishment of dismissal passed against the workman does not appear disproportionate
against the charge of unauthorized and habitual absenteeism. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to
reinstatement and back wages. The Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that an award be drawn up to the effect that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against the
workman and he is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement and back wages. 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, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1120.—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
–
सह
–
]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभव संख्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/53/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1120.—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.25/2022) 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 05/06/2024
[No. L-22012/53/2022 – 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. 25 OF 2022
PARTIES: Geeta Singh
(wife of Late Ranjeet Singh)
Vs.
Management of Jambad OCP 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:
06.05.2024
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2431
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-22012/53/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 01.06.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of Jambad OCP under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Jambad OCP, Kajora Area of M/s. E.C.Ltd. in not providing
employment and monetary compensation to Smt. Geeta Singh W/o Late Ranjeet Sigh, Ex- Fitter is legal and
justified? If not, what relief Smt. Geeta Singh W/o Late Ranjeet Singh is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/53/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 01.06.2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 25 of 2022 was registered on
02.06.2022 / 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.
2.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited filed written statement on behalf of the
management of Eastern Coalfields Limited on 16.11.2022. No written statement has been filed by Gita Singh,
petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress (HMS) has appeared on several dates i.e.
16.11.2022, 08.02.2023, 16.05.2023, 26.09.2023, 06.03.2024, and 06.05.2024 but did not file any written statement
on behalf of the dependent of deceased employee. After extending six opportunities to the petitioner no effective
step has been taken by the union, I am of the considered view that no purpose would be served by allowing
unnecessary accommodation. The dependent of the employee is not diligent in pursuing this case. The Industrial
Dispute is accordingly dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be
sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1121.—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
–
सह
–
]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िभव संख्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/62/2004-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1121.—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.05/2005) 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 05/06/2024
[No. L-22012/62/2004 – 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.
2432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2005
PARTIES: Mantu Ghosh
(represented by his dependent son, Arup Ghosh)
Vs.
Management of 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanra Area of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Advocate.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
07.05.2024
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-22012/62/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 27.12.2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between
the employer, that is the Management of 1 and 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of 1 & 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited in dismissing Sh. Mantu Ghosh, Cleaning Mazdoor, U.M.No. 694706 from services w.e.f. 24.3.98 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/62/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 27.12.2004 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 05 of 2005 was registered on
12.01.2005 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.
2.
Workman filed a written statement on 03.10.2005 and management filed their written statement on
11.08.2006. The fact of the workman’s case is that Mantu Ghosh, the aggrieved workman was a permanent
employee under ECL and was employed at 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ECL). He was regular in his attendance at work but due to illness since 1995 and could not
attend his duty regularly. Illness of the workman aggravated in December 1997 as a result he seriously fell ill from
21.12.1997 and was medically treated at the Sub-Divisional Hospital at Asansol up to 11.04.1998. In the written
statement he disclosed that he was suffering from Tuberculosis and was advised to take complete rest. The workman
being the only male member in his family could not send any information to his colliery regarding the reason of his
absence from duty. After recovery he went to join his duty on 12.04.1998 but the colliery management did not
permit him to resume his duty and informed him that he had already been dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.03.1998.
3.
According to the workman neither any Charge Sheet nor any Notice of enquiry was served upon him by the
management before dismissing him from service. No 2nd Show Cause Notice and order of dismissal was issued to
him. He was verbally intimated on 12.04.1998 that he had been dismissed from service. It is the case of the
workman that he absented from duty for three and a half months only and without giving him any opportunity of
being heard the management dismissed him without any reasonable ground, which is illegal, whimsical, arbitrary
and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The workman requested that management on several occasion to
permit him to join his duty but the management did not consider his prayer. The aggrieved workman in this
Industrial Dispute has prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal and for his reinstatement in service with full
back wages and other consequential benefits.
4.
Management of ECL contested the case by filing their written statement. The counter contention of the
management is that Charge Sheet bearing No. AGT/JNR/1&2/P/CS/98/15 dated 05.01.1998 under Clause 17(d) and
17(n) of the Model Standing Order applicable to the workman was issued for his unauthorized absence from duty as
well as habitual absence, seeking clarification of his absence from duty on and from 21.12.1997. The workman did
not submit any reply to the Charge Sheet nor did he attend the domestic enquiry which was held to enquire into the
charge levelled against him. Due to non-participation of the workman the enquiry was held ex-parte and the charge
was found to be proved. The workman was found to be a habitual absentee from duty and was chargesheeted on
several occasions. He was punished on earlier occasion by stoppage of three increment with cumulative effect
communicated by letter under Ref. AGT/JNR/1&2/P/97/892 dated 29.11.1997/01.12.1997. Two increments were
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2433
again stopped by letter dated 05.06.1997, further two more increments were stopped by letter dated 14.11.1996,
again one increment was stopped by letter dated 04/08.10.1996 and two increments were stopped by letter dated
01/04.02.1996. The workman was finally dismissed vide order bearing Ref. No. CGM/JNR/PER/08/98/5308 dated
24/27.03.1998. It is the case of the management that the past attendance of the workman was poor which was only
78 days in the year 1995, 127 days in 1996 and 58 days in 1997. The workman did not deserve any leniency for
which he was dismissed. A reference was made before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol by
submission of application by workman on 12.09.2003. The conciliation proceeding failed and after a delay this
Reference case has been initiated. Management urged that the dismissal of the workman was lawful and justified
and he is not entitled to any relief.
5.
Mantu Ghosh filed his affidavit-in-chief on 28.09.2007. During pendency of the Reference case Mantu
Ghosh died an unnatural death on 29.09.2008 leaving behind Rita Ghosh, his wife, Arup Ghosh, Pankaj Ghosh, and
Manoj Ghosh, his sons, Deepmala Ghosh, his daughter, who were substituted in place of the deceased workman by
order dated 25.06.2013. The affidavit-in-chief of Mantu Ghosh was not pressed. At the time of adducing
evidence Arup Ghosh, son of Late Mantu Ghosh filed an affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the case disclosed
in the written statement of the workman. He also asserted that the management straight away dismissed his father
without giving him any opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him which are baseless. It
is admitted by the witness that Mantu Ghosh could not attend duty w.e.f. 21.12.1997 up to 11.04.1998. In cross-
examination the witness deposed that his father was suffering from Tuberculosis and all the papers relating to his
treatment had been deposited before the court. The witness deposed that the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Durgapur is
nearer to his house than Asansol but his father was treated at Sub-Divisional Hospital at Asansol. The witness could
not state as to for how many days his father had remained admitted in the hospital. In course of his evidence, he
could not deposit any document related to medical treatment of his father at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol.
6.
Mr. Abhijit Chakraborty, Senior Officer (Personnel) at Jhanjra Project Colliery has examined himself as
Management Witness – 1 and filed his affidavit-in-chief wherein he stated that Mantu Ghosh was a habitual
absentee and prior to his dismissal he had been punished on several occasions for his unauthorized absence. On five
occasions warnings were issued against him in 1995 and 1996. There had been stoppage of increment in 1997. The
MW-1 deposed that the Charge Sheet was issued to Mantu Ghosh bearing No. AGT/JNR/1&2/P/CS/98/15 dated
05.01.1998, asking him to show cause for his absence from duty but he did not respond. An Enquiry Officer was
appointed to hold the enquiry in the matter but the workman did not appear and the enquiry was held ex-parte. The
Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of charge and a 2nd Show Cause Notice was also issued to him but he did
not respond. The management thereafter dismissed the workman which is justified and the workman is not entitled
to any relief. The witness has produced a copy of the Charge Sheet dated 05.01.1998, as Exhibit M-1 and
deposed that Charge Sheet was issued to Mantu Ghosh through registered post at his address at Vill: Kalipur, PO:
Dakshinkhanda, PS: Andal, Dist.: Burdwan (West Bengal), but the workman did not submit any reply. The
management witness further deposed that Notice of enquiry dated 15.01.1998, 29.01.1998, and 20.02.1998 were
issued to Mantu Ghosh and copies of the same were produced as Exhibit M-2, M-3, and M-4. It may be derived
from the cross-examination that though venue of the enquiry was not mentioned in the Notice of enquiry the
Departmental Enquiry was held on 04.03.1998 at the Office of the Agent, 1 and 2 Incline, Jhanjra Area. A copy of
the Enquiry Proceeding in three pages has been produced as Exhibit M-5. A copy of the Enquiry Report dated
04.03.1998, as Exhibit M-6. A 2nd Show Cause Notice dated 06/10.03.1998 issued by the Chief General Manager,
Jhanjra Area, as Exhibit M-7. A copy of letter of dismissal dated 24/27.03.1998, dismissing Mantu Ghosh from
service, as Exhibit M-8. The witness went ahead to state that prior to the dismissal, Mantu Ghosh was punished for
his misconduct whereby one increment of his pay was stopped in October 1996 and two increments were stopped
for one year in November 1996. The communications were marked as Exhibit M-9 and M-10. Copy of letter of
warning dated 08.03.1997 has been marked as Exhibit M-11. Copy of letter of warning dated 02.07.1997 for
unauthorized absence from duty, as Exhibit M-12. In the year 1997 two increments of the workman were stopped
which is revealed from document marked as Exhibit M-13.
7.
In cross-examination the management witness stated that the Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry were sent
to the workman at his home address but he was unable to produce any document to show that the same were sent to
the workman at his home address. The witness denied that the Notice of enquiry and Charge Sheet were not served
upon the workman but admitted that he could not produce A/D Card to show that the service was made to the
workman through registered post. In cross-examination the witness deposed that no reply was submitted by the
workman in response to the 2nd Show Cause Notice.
8.
Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the dependent of the deceased employee argued
that he management of the employer company dismissed the workman keeping him in the dark regarding the
enquiry. It is argued that no Charge Sheet, Notice of enquiry, and 2nd Show Cause Notice were served upon the
workman. The order of dismissal was not communicated to the workman, therefore the entire proceeding is
arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. it is urged that the order of dismissal is liable to be
set aside and the dependent of the deceased employee are entitled to full back wages along with consequential relief.
2434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for ECL in reply, argued that Mantu Ghosh was a habitual absentee
and on earlier occasion he had been warned several times for his unauthorized absence without reasons and his
increments were stopped time to time. It is argued that no satisfactory reply has been submitted by learned advocate
representing the interest of the deceased workman. It is further submitted that Charge Sheet and three Notice of
enquiry were issued to the workman under registered post at his home address at Vill: Kalipur, PO: Dakshinkhanda,
PS: Andal, Dist.: Burdwan (West Bengal), but the workman did not respond the same.
10.
Admittedly he remained absent from duty from 21.12.1997 without any intimation to the management on
prior approval. A domestic enquiry was held ex-parte on 04.03.1998 where it was clearly stated that three Notice of
enquiry were sent to the home address of the workman as mentioned in the Form ‘B’ Register and after giving
sufficient opportunity, consistent with the principles of natural justice, the domestic enquiry was conducted ex-parte
on 04.03.1998, on merit. A management representative Mr. A. B. Kora, Clerk, was examined by the Enquiry Officer
who supported the case disclosed in the Charge Sheet. It is found that in the year 1995 the workman attended duty
for 78 days, in the year 1996 for 127 days and in the year 1997 for 58 days only. Four punishment orders were also
placed before the Enquiry Officer. It was concluded by the Enquiry Officer that the charge levelled against Mantu
Ghosh stood proved beyond doubt. After the Enquiry Report were submitted before the competent authority on
04.03.1998 a 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman bearing No. CGM/JNR/PER/08/98/5152 dated
06/10.03.1998, wherein it was clearly mentioned that from the enquiry report it was evident that the charge against
Mantu Ghosh has been established beyond doubt. Copy of Domestic Enquiry and Report was forwarded to the
workman at his home address under registered post, granting him time to submit his explanation within three days
form the date of receipt of the communication. After waiting for a considerable period, on 27.03.1998 the competent
authority issued the letter of dismissal to Mantu Ghosh with immediate effect. The copy of the letter of dismissal has
been produced as Exhibit M-8.
11.
In the present case the workman as well as his dependents have taken a plea that Mantu Ghosh was under
medical treatment at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol due to Tuberculosis. There was no occasion for the
workman to file any medical document before the management as he was already dismissed from service on
27.03.1998 i.e. prior to his date of returning to his workplace on 12.04.1998. The workman admittedly remained
absent from his duty from 21.12.1997 and did not think it necessary to inform the reasons of his absence to the
management. It is true that the management could not produce the A/D cards or postal receipts in respect of Charge
Sheet, Notice of enquiry, 2nd Show Cause Notice, and order of dismissal which were issued to the workman at his
home address at Vill: Kalipur, PO: Dakshinkhanda, PS: Andal, Dist.: Burdwan (West Bengal). The documents
which have been produced by the management show that they were sent to the workman at his home address. On
one hand the management has produced an array of documents in connection with the Domestic Enquiry and various
communication were made to the workman in different dates and on the other hand the workman who remained
absent from duty for such a long period without intimation has simply raised question that he was unaware about the
Domestic Enquiry and the order of dismissal is illegal. Having considered the various documents and evidence
produced by the management witness, I have no hesitation to hold that the management of 1 and 2 Incline under
Jhanjra Area of ECL had provided reasonable opportunity to the workman to participate in the enquiry proceeding
and submit his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer after issuance of the 2nd Show Cause
Notice. In view of the facts and evidence on record, I hold that there is no extenuating circumstance in favour of the
workman and the management committed no illegality in holding the Enquiry Proceeding in respect of the charge of
unauthorized absence of the workman for more than ten days and his habitual absence from duty. I hold that there is
no merit in the case of the workman and find no reason for interfering with the impugned order of dismissal.
Accordingly, the dependents of the dismissed workman are not entitled to any relief of back wages. The Reference
case is accordingly dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute 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, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1122.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मेससव लिंिुस्ट्तान जिृयाडव जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; हैदराबाद ds iapkV (37/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-18]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2435
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.37/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Hindustan
Shipyard Limited and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024– IR (B-II)-18]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of March, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2022
Between:
Sri Seboco Chota,
D.No.28-45-1, Vadlapudi Post,
Near Mee Seva 2nd Line,
Kanithi RH Colony,
Visakhapatnam- 530 005.
..….Petitioner
AND
The chairman-cum-Managing Director,
M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited,
Gandhigram(P.O.),
Visakhapatnam – 530 005.
… Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Ms. G. Manjula, Advocate
For the Respondent: Representative
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. 8/5/2022-B1 dated 11.2.2022 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Sri Seboko Chota and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam in
dismissing the services of Sri Seboko Chota, Ex.Jr. Assistant w.e.f. 25.4.2018 is legal and justified or not?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 37/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
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. It seems Petitioner do not want to pursue his case.
Hence, 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 21st day of
March, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
2436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1123.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
इंजडयन ओवरसीि बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; हैदराबाद ds iapkV (11/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-19]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B-II)-19]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: -
Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of March, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 11/2012
Between:
Sri G. Veenesh Babu,
S/o G. Govinda Rao,
R/o 1-3-748, Kawadiguda,
Hyderabad.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kukatpally Branch, HIG-493,
Phase-VI, KPHB Colony,
Hyderabad
2.
The General Manager,
Industrial Relations Department,
Central Office, Chennai – 600 002.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. J. Umamaheswara Rao and M. Madhusudhan, Advocates
For the Respondent:
M/s. E. Madan Mohan Rao & M. Srinivas, Advocates
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2437
AWARD
Sri G. Veenesh Babu, who worked as Temporary Messenger (who will be referred to as the workman) has
filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents seeking for
declaring the proceeding dated 1.7.2010 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.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
The Petitioner submits that, he was appointed by the 1st Respondent as Temporary Messenger w.e.f. 1.1.2005 and
he served in the Organization to the utmost satisfaction of his Senior Officers and that his name was also sponsored
by the Employment Exchange, after his name was sponsored from the Employment Exchange an interview was also
conducted during the month of July, 2008 and he was successful in the interview and he was informed that his
services will be regularized as Messenger, after getting the approval from the Central office i.e., the 2nd Respondent.
It is further submitted that, during the year 2008 a Certificate was issued by the 1st Respondent to enable the
Petitioner to get employment in other branches on regular basis. In fact, the 1st Respondent has engaged the
Petitioner in their extension counter i.e. Nalanda Branch Extension, which was subsequently regularized. In fact,
the 1st Respondent has extracted services of the Petitioner till June, 2010 by paying his salary from their
miscellaneous account. The Petitioner was asked not to attend his duties w.e.f. 1.7.2010, without assigning any
reason and in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, he filed an application before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) but, no avail. It is submitted that, each and every employer is following
the total unfair Labour Practice by following hire and fire system by taking undue advantage of the Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006 (4) SCC 1) wherein it was held that Workman
cannot be regularized if their appointments were not made in accordance with the law. Thus, it is clear that, the
observations and guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are about the Public Employment but not
about the Employment / Problems covered under Industrial Dispute Act. Moreover, our Country's economy is
mainly based on manpower but not on technical power, but the Industries are taking undue advantage by adopting
the unfair labour practice, thus depriving the workers from their legal entitlements prescribed under Industrial
Disputes Act. It is further submitted that, as far as the sponsoring the name from the Employment Exchange, it is
not mandatory that the Petitioner should be sponsored from the Employment Exchange. In the instant case the
Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent on temporary basis and also got interviewed by the Respondent through
Employment Exchange, even his application along with certain understandings was also obtained by the 1st
Respondent. Inspite of these things his case was not considered for regularization, instead his services were
terminated w.e.f. 1.7.2010. It is submitted that, the Respondents may take the shelter Hon'ble Supreme Courts
Judgment on the point non-reference of the Petitioner's name from the Employment Exchange (Uma Devi's
Judgment), but they cannot violate the provisions of Employment Exchanges Act, 1959. As per this Act under
Section 44(4) on Employer to recruit the persons sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In view of the above it
is clear that the Respondent cannot support his stand of termination of the Petition, from service as legal, and is
violative of the law and on the following points:
a) The Petitioner was engaged for a period of more than 5 Years
b) His name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange while he was in service during the year 2008.
c) Even he was permitted to attend the interview in July, 2008
d) His services were terminated through an oral order w.e.f.1.7.2010 without assigning reason.
e) Even the post is still vacant and they getting the work done by getting people from other branches namely
Ratnakar and Lakshmi and some other people whose names and particulars will be furnished at the time
evidence.
Thus, it is clear that, the services of the Petitioner as the Temporary Messenger were terminated in violation of the
provisions of Section 25 (F) and Section 25 (N) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the above, it is prayed
to set aside the oral termination order dated 1.7.2010 by directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into
their services with back wages and all other consequential and service benefits entitled under Industrial Disputes
Act.
3.
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 Applicant was appointed by the 1st Respondent as Temporary Messenger w.e.f. 01.01.2005
and he served in the or ganization to the utmost satisfaction of his senior officers is incorrect. The Workman was not
appointed as Temporary Messenger in the bank at any point of time. As such, the question of his working to the
utmost satisfaction of his senior officers does not arise. It is submitted that it may be true that the name of Workman
was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was called to appear for an interview but his claim that he was
successful in the interview is not true as successful candidates are not denied employment and have been recruited
2438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by the bank. His claim that he was informed that his services will be regularised as messenger is misconceived and
incorrect and it is further submitted that Respondent bank never assures such things. It is further submitted that the
Petitioner services were terminated by the 1st Respondent without assigning any reason is misconceived and
incorrect as the Workman was never appointed by the Respondent bank in any capacity, question of termination
does not arise. The averments that the Applicant was selected and appointed as a Messenger in four branches is also
incorrect. The Applicant was never selected, never appointed as Messenger in the Respondent bank. The allegation
that the 1st Respondent has engaged the Petitioner in their extension counter i.e., Nalanda branch extension, which
was subsequently regularized is also incorrect. The bank also deny the issuance of any certificate as the bank
never issued any certificate to get employment in other branches on regular basis. The allegation that the Workman
was asked not to attend his duties w.e.f. 01.07.2010 without assigning any reason and in violation of the provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is incorrect. It is submitted that each and every employer is following the total
unfair Labour practice by following hire and fire system by taking undue advantage of the Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006 (4) SCC 1) is misconceived. The reference to the other
orders of the Hon'ble courts have no relevance to the present dispute. It is submitted that Respondents deny having
engaged the Petitioner for a period of more than 5 years. It may be true that he might have attended the interview in
2008, however, appearing for an interview does not confer a right to the member for employment. As the
Applicant/Petitioner/ Workman not even employed by these Respondents, terminating his services does not arise
and Respondents have no role to play. It is denied that the post of Messenger at Kukatpally is vacant at present and
that a regular full time messenger is attached to the branch. It is submitted that the application of the
Applicant/Workman is devoid of merits and that the application itself is not maintainable under I.D. Act, 1947 and
also without jurisdiction and Respondents have not violated any provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 as alleged by the
Petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
4.
During the hearing, the claimant workman has testified himself as WW1 and exhibited the documents
Ex.W1, service certificate issued by first Respondent dated 8.6.2011 and application to ALC(C) dated 6.1.2012.
On the other hand, the Respondent Management has examined witness MW1 and exhibited the document Ex.M1.
5.
Both parties have filed written arguments.
6.
On going through the rival pleadings of both the parties and arguments advanced, the following
points emerge for determination:-
I. Whether the action of the Respondent Bank in terminating the services of the workman by oral orders
dated 1.7.2010 is legal and justified?
II. To what relief is the Petitioner entitled?
Findings:-
7.
Point No.I:
The claimant WW1 in his sworn testimony has stated that he joined the services of the
Respondent as a temporary Messenger on 1.1.2005, through due process and ever since the date of joining he had
worked continuously with best of his ability and utmost satisfaction of his superiors till his services were
terminated by first Respondent on 30.6.2010 without assigning any reason. Further, WW1 testified that on
30.6.2010 he was informed orally not to attend duties from 1.7.2010 and while terminating his services orally
neither he was issued one month pay in lieu of the notice nor paid with compensation. Petitioner claimant submitted
that his oral termination dated 1.7.2010 from service is illegal and in violation of the provision of Sec.25F of the ID
Act and he is liable to be reinstated into the service with continuity of the service, attendant benefits and full back
wages.
8.
On the other hand Respondent has refuted the contention of the Petitioner as stated by WW1. Respondent
witness MW1 has testified in his sworn testimony that the Petitioner workman was never appointed as a temporary
messenger in the bank at any point of time and he was never selected nor appointed as a messenger in the
Respondent bank. Further, MW1 states that the Petitioner workman had worked only as a temporary messenger
during the period 2005-2008 on daily wages basis and he never worked at Extension Counter at Nalanda Branch, nor
in other four branches as alleged in the application. Further, MW1 states that and the Respondent bank has not
violated any provisions of the I D Act, 1947. Further, witness MW1 testifies that Respondent has not engaged the
Petitioner for a period of more than five years and he was never selected in any interview or nor appointed as a
regular employee of the Respondent bank and as such, the question of termination from service does not arise.
Further, witness states that the Petitioner has not filed any single document to show that he was selected for the post
of Messenger. Thus, from the above statement of the MW1 it is deducible that the witness stood firm regarding
his statement of chief affidavit and nothing contradictory has been elicited in the cross examination. Thus, the
claim of the Petitioner workman has been refuted by the Respondent witness MW1.
9.
The burden of proof lies on the Petitioner workman to prove the plea that his oral termination is in
violation of the provision of Sec. 25F of the Act. In this context relevant provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947
is extracted below:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2439
Section 25F provides:-
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified
by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.
Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides
Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a
strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the
workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
Further, in the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004)
Hon’ble Apex Court have laid down the principle regarding burden of proof to prove contravention of
provision of Sec.25 F of the Act:-
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in the year
preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that cannot
be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had
worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere
non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the
workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195)Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have
held "the burden was on the workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one
year prior to his alleged retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was
again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court
having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement
solely on an adverse inference drawn erroneously ..”
In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the Apex
Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of
service."
In the case of Mohan Lal v. Management BEL 1981 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:
"Before a workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that
he has been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service.”
"Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the
fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days
during the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being
the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to
determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After
that date is ascertained, move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then
ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If
these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in
2440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he
will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"
In view of Law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the burden of proof to prove the fact, that
workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination lies
on the workman. Now let us examine whether workman herein has succeeded to discharge his burden of proof.
10.
Petitioner Witness WW1 in his sworn testimony has reiterated averments made in the claim statement.
WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent counsel and in his cross examination witness states,
“ I have only filed the service certificate under Ex.W1 and I have not filed any other document regarding my
appointment under the Respondent. I have not filed any document to show that I was selected in the interview
conducted in the year 2008. I have not filed any document or any letter of the bank enabling me to work under any
other branches of the Respondent bank. I have not filed any salary certificate issued by the Respondent bank in my
favour. Further, witness WW1 states, I have orally terminated from the Respondent’s bank from 1.7.2010. It is a fact
on 17.10.2012 I had submitted a representation to the Respondent bank, the xerox copy of the same is marked as
Ex.M1. It is a fact that in Ex.M1 I have mentioned that I have worked under Respondent ‘s bank from 2004 to 2009.
It is a fact that I have not mentioned in my representation vide Ex.M1 about my oral termination in the year 2010
and in my representation I have only requested for a permanent job. It is fact that as per Ex.W1 I was working from
2005 to 2008 in the Respondent’s bank on daily wages basis. It is fact that as per Ex.W1 I was working under the
Respondent bank from 2005 to 2008. It is not correct to say that I am not an employee under the Respondent bank
and that the question of my termination does not arise.”
Therefore, from the statement of WW1 in cross examination it delineates that the claimant Petitioner had worked in
the Respondent bank from 2005-2008 on daily wages basis as per Ex.W1. But, He has not filed any appointment
letter or salary certificate or an other document pertaining to his appointment in the Respondent bank against any
post. Therefore, in absence of such documentary evidence, the claim of Petitioner that he was appointed as a
temporary messenger in the Respondent bank can not be accepted. However, whatever documents has been
submitted by Petitioner in evidence does not pertain to his appointment in Respondent bank as he claims. Ex.W1
goes to show that the testimonial work certificate has been issued by the senior Manager of the Bank which only
certify that the claimant Petitioner Sri G. Veenesh Babu has worked as a temporary Messenger during the period
2005-2008 in the Kukatpally branch of Respondent bank on daily wages. This document does not disclose that the
Petitioner was ever appointed on any post of temporary Messenger in the Respondent bank. Apart from the Ex.W1,
Ex.W2 is the representation addressed to the Asst. Labour Commissioner(C). Petitioner has moved it to ALC(C)
regarding his oral termination from the service by the Respondent bank. Except above mentioned two documents,
no other documentary evidence has been filed by the Petitioner to fortify his claim that he was appointed by the
Respondent as temporary Messenger w.e.f. 1.1.2005. In order to prove his termination in contravention of the
provisions of Sec.25F burden of proof lies upon the shoulder of the Petitioner that he had worked for 240 days
continuously in the Respondent bank just preceding to the date of his termination from the service in a 12 months of
calendar year. But the Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to this effect. Therefore, the contention of the
claimant Petitioner that he has been terminated in contravention of the provisions of Sec.25F of the ID Act, 1947 is
untenable and not acceptable. However, the Petitioner in his claim statement states that he had worked in the
Respondent bank as messenger for the period from year 2005 to 2008. Whereas the Respondent has filed Ex.M1
which is the copy of the application dated 17.10.2012 addressed to the Regional Office of Indian Overseas Bank
by the applicant Petitioner and that has been admitted by WW1 in his cross examination. It is quite surprising on
going through the application that the applicant has not mentioned regarding his oral termination in his application
and moreover has prayed for his appointment as a permanent employee in the branch on the basis of the ground that
he had worked in Respondent bank during the period from 2004 to 2009.
9.
Thus, claim of Petitioner regarding duration of work in Respondent bank is contradictory as made in claim
statement. On going through evidence on record, I am of the view that Petitioner failed to establish his claim by
his evidence that his termination from service is in contravention of provision of sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Therefore, action of Respondent in terminating the services of Petitioner is legal and justified.
This Point No.I is answered accordingly.
10.
Point No.II: In view of the fore gone discussion, and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as
discussed in preceding paragraph I am of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and his petition is
liable to be dismissed.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Points No. I & II, I am of the considered view that the
action of the Respondent Bank in terminating the services of the workman by oral orders dated 1.7.2010 is legal and
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2441
justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. As such, the petition filed by the Petitioner
deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 27th day of March, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri G. Veenesh Babu
MW1: Sri Jyoti Prakash Dutta
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of service certificate of WW1 dt.8..2011
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to ALC(C) dt.6.1.2012
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of representation from WW1 to Respondent dt.17.10.2012
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1124.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds कमांडेंट, 27, फील्ड गोला बाप ि जडृो जृन-909427 सी/ओ 56 एृीओ, मेिर ऑदफसर कमांलडंग, 25 ृोटवर कंृनी, जृन
909427 सी/ओ 56 एृीओ, ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV (44/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-159]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.44/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Commandant, 27,
Field Ammunition Depot PIN- 909427 C/O 56 APO, The Major Officer Commanding, 25 Porter Company, Pin
909427 C/O 56 APO, and their Workmen
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-159]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)
Presiding Officer – Radha Mohan Chaturvedi
I.D No. – 44/2019
(Ref. No. AJ-8/2/40/2019-I.R)
Dated: 23.08.2019
Gori Shankar S/O Shri Bihari Lal aged about 30 years resident of Chaukhuti Phatak, Bikaner
APPLICANT
Verses
1. The Commandant, 27, Field Ammunition Depot PIN- 909427 C/O 56 APO.
2. The Major Officer Commanding, 25 Porter Company, Pin 909427 C/O 56 APO.
-RESPONDENTS
2442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Present: Shri Santokh Singh advocate, for Applicant.
None is present for Respondents.
AWARD Dated: 20.12.23
1. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central Ajmer) in exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub
section (1) and sub section (2 A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (In short “The Act”) and issuance
of the notification number S.O. 1936 (E) dated 10th June 2019 had referred the following industrial dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal.
“Whether the action of the Major, Officer Commanding, 25, Porter Company Pin No. 909427 C/o-56
APO in retrenching the services of Shri Gori Shankar S/o Shri Bihari Lal, Porter w.e.f. 06.03.2003 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to, and what directions are necessary in
the matter?”
2. The applicant filed his statement of claim on 24.01.20 before this tribunal. Summarized contentions of applicant
are as under.
3. The applicant was appointed by the major officer commanding, 25 porter company, as a porter on 25.05.2002 on
daily wages basis under “Parakram Operation”. The respondent no. 2 has issued a certificate of experience on
05.03.2003 mentioning that the applicant has served as porter during “Operation Parakram” from 25.05.2002 to
03.03.2003 but from 06.03.2003 onwards he was not allowed to work and was informed that his services as porter
have been retrenched. Services of applicant has been retrenched illegally without giving any show cause notice. The
applicant has worked for more than 240 days continuously and thus has become a regular workman of 25 porter
company. His retrenchment from services without following the provisions of the act is illegal and violating of
section 25-F of the Act. The respondent neither circulated the seniority list of porters nor followed the seniority
order. This act of respondent is violating of section 25-G of the Act. The respondent did not follow the principle of
last come first go and thus violated the provision of section 25-G of the act. The applicant had made so many
requests to the respondent to continue his services but all in vain. The respondent have terminated services of the
applicant illegally without providing any opportunity to defend. Therefore the statement of claim may be allowed,
the retrenchment of applicant be quashed and the applicant be reinstated and ordered to be allowed all benefits of
regular pay scale.
4. On 24.02.20 notices issued against respondent were found well served as per track record available but no one
appeared on behalf of respondent. Therefore ex–parte order was passed against respondent no. 1. similarly on
18.01.21 ex-parte order was passed against respondent no. 2 also due to its absence without any reason.
5. The applicant has examined himself in its evidence and exhibited annexures A/1, A/2 and A/3 as documentary
evidence.
6. On 12.12.23 None appeared on behalf of respondents. Therefore arguments of applicant heard ex-parte and
considered the evidence available on record.
7. Learned counsel for applicant during his arguments has stressed upon, on-oath statements of applicant Gori
Shankar which has not been controverted by the respondents and drew my attention towards exhibit A2 the
experience certificate issued to applicant by the respondent. He has contended that respondent has admitted that the
applicant Gori Shankar has worked during “Operation Parakram” from 25th May 2002 to 3rd March 2002. Thus the
applicant has completed more than 240 days continuous service under respondent. According to provisions of
section 25-B of the Act applicant has completed continuous service of one calendar year preceding to the date of
termination of the applicant. He has further contented that respondent had not issued any notice prior to termination
of service and not paid any notice pay in lieu of notice and also not paid retrenchment compensation as per
provisions of the Act. Respondents have not followed the provision of section 25-G and H by issuing seniority list
and giving preference in service upon the juniors of applicant.
8. A judgement of Honourable MP High Court Sachiv Krishi Upajmandi Samiti Sanawad Vs Mahendra
Kumar((2004) 101 FLR 176) has been cited by the applicant in support of its arguments.
9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments, and ratio propounded in the judgement.
10. First of all it is to be made clear that the burden of proof to prove that the applicant workman has worked more
than 240 days in one calendar years preceding the date of termination lies upon the workman concerned. The
applicant has in its evidence exhibited annexure A-2 the experience certificate issued by major officer commanding
25 porter company. This certificate clearly discloses that this experience certificates was issued on the basis of
services rendered by the applicant for a limited period which was scheduled for “Operation Parakram” from
December 2001 to March 2003. The applicant has served during this operation from 25th May 2002 to 3rd March
2003. It is pertinent to note that when an operation is scheduled to commence a date of termination of the activities
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2443
of operation concerned is also fixed. Such type of operations are not continuously held but scheduled for a task for a
limited or determined period, as is clear from exhibit annexure A-2 in which the duration of “Operation Parakram”
has been mentioned as “December 2001 to March 2003”. It means during this limited period, to perform the work of
porter, services of applicant were hired for a limited period which was scheduled to end by March 2003.
11. As per definition of retrenchment, as given under section 2 (oo) “Retrenchment” means the termination by the
employer of the service of the workman for any reasons what so ever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action but does not include- voluntary retirement of the workman or retirement on reaching the
super-annuation, if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned, contains a
stipulation in that behalf, or termination of the services of the workman as a result of non renewal of the contract of
the employment between the workman and the employer on its expiry, or of such contract being terminated under
stipulation in that behalf, contained there in. A bare perusal of Annexure A-2 certificate clearly expresses that the
“Operation Parakram” was for a limited (fixed) period and a stipulation is impliedly made that the services are taken
for a limited period of the operation concerned. The term of operation was to expire by March 2003. Thus the
services rendered by the applicant as per this experience certificate (Annexure A-2) was for a limited period up to
March 2003. In this factual scenario the termination of services with effect from 06.03.2003 was not a retrenchment,
as per provisions contained in section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.
12. As the termination of services of the applicant was not retrenchment under the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) of
the Act the provisions of section 25-F of the Act are not attracted for compliance by the respondent. Though the
applicant has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year.
13. Hon’ble MP High Court in its judgement cited by the applicant has propounded that when it is concluded on the
basis of facts and evidence that respondent workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days in one
calendar year and no retrenchment compensation was paid prior to termination, such retrenchment is illegal and the
workman in entitled to take benefits of reinstatement in service and back wages. The ratio of this judgement is not to
be followed as the facts of the dispute in hand are not similar to this judgement. The termination of service of
applicant does not appear to be a retrenchment under section 2(oo)(bb).
14. Considering this state of affairs and evidence particularly exhibit annexure A-2, the termination of service of
applicant with effect from 06.03.2003 is found legal and justified as this tenure of service of applicant was for a
limited period of “Operation Parakram” which was scheduled from December 2001 to March 2003. The applicant is
therefore not entitled to get any relief from the respondents.
15. The referred dispute is adjudicated and answered as above. Copy of the Award be sent for publication under the
provision of section 17(1) of the act.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1125.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मजससव एन.के.िी. इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड (ठेकेिार) ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] 2 दिल्ली ds iapkV (08/2018) izdkf”kr djrh
gSA
[la- ,y -12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-160]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No -
2 Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s N.K.G. Infrastructure
Ltd. ( Contractor) and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024– IR(B-1) -160]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 08/2018
Sh. ShambhuNathYadav S/o SagunYadav
2444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
M/s NBCC Ltd. (P.E)
Throuhg its Chairman
NBCC House Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2.
M/s N.K.G. Infrastructure Ltd. (Contractor)
Through its Managing Director,
1107 Kailash Building, 26 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
AWARD
This is an application U/s 2A of the I.D Act filed by the claimant against his illegal termination. It is the
case of the workman that he had been working at the post of mechanic with the management at the last drawn
salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He did his work well and has not given any chance of making any complaint to
the management nor he was charged while he was in service. Since beginning management has not been
providing any legal facility i.e. appointment letter, I-card, Salary slip, Leave record and Bonus etc. When the
workman had raised his voice against the management, his services was terminated without assigning any reason
on 10.06.2017 which is violation of labour law. It is further his case that he had sent the demand letter asking the
management to take him on job, however management had not replied nor he was taken on job. He had filed his
claim before the conciliation officer, however, conciliation become failure. Hence, he has filed his claim with the
prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages since the date of termination, he is jobless.
Respondent-1 had filed the reply and denied the employer and employee relationship between the workman
and him. He submits that the management has awarded the contract to the management-2 for hiring of the
manpower. He submits claim is liable to be dismissed. Management-2 had not appeared and his right to file the W.S
was closed vide order dated 07.08.2018.
Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant to the W.S of the management-1 wherein, he had denied the
averment made by the M-1 and affirmed the averment made in the claim.
From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 30.08.2018 following issues have been framed:
1. Whether the termination of the claimant by the management is illegal and against the provision of I.D. Act ?
2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable against management in view of various preliminary
objections?
3. Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement into service with back wages as claimed and litigation
expenses.
In order to prove his case, workman had tendered his affidavit in evidence, however, thereafter, workman had
stopped him coming to the court for the purpose of cross-examination. Vide order dated 22.02.2023 evidence
tendered by the claimant stood expunged.
In the absence of any evidence on record, workman claim is resulted into failure. Hence, his claim is stand
dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification
of U/S 17 of the I.D Act. File is consigned to record room.
Date 14th March, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1126.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एन.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/11/2022) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[l- ,y-22012/04/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2445
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/11/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of N.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22012/04/2022– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The Joint General Secretary,
National Coal Mines Workers Union(INTUC),
Regional Office, Chandameta,
Dist. Chhindwara – 480447
Workman
Versus
The Sub Area Manager,
Nehria Sub-District, Vekoli,
Pench Area, District Chhindwara(M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 22nd day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 02/02/2022 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-22012/04/2022 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 02/02/2022. The dispute under reference related to :-
“क् या, उृक्षेत्र प्रबन् िक, नेिररया उृक्षेत्र वेकोजल, ृेंच क्षेत्र, जिला लछंिवाड़ा (मध् य प्रिेि) द्वारा कामगार श्री
सरवन कुमार ईले दफटर केटेगरी –VI ( टोकन नंबर – 189) को, उनसे िूजनयर कामगारों को ृिोन् नत कर, उन्िें ( श्री
सरवन कुमार को ) अजसस्ट् टेन् ट फोरमेन इले ग्रेड सी में ृिोन् नत निीं दकया िाना न् यायोजचत िज? यदि निीं, तो श्री सरवन
कुमार, क् या अनुतोष ृाने के िकिार िज? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and
service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file
its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor
did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of 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: 22/05/2024
2446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1127.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर सी/04/2017) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1127—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/RC/04/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/04/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Nek Mohammad S/o. Late Shri Baitullah
Mechanical Fitter, Category-VI at Regional
Workshop, Korea Colliery of SECl, Chirimiri Area
PO : Katkona, Distt.- Korea (CG)
Workman
Versus
The Chief Manager (Electrical & Mechanical)
SECL, Regional Workshop, Korea Colliery, Chirimiri Area
District Korea (CG)
The General Manager
SECL, Chirimiri Area, PO: West Chirimiri Colliery
Distt.- Korea (CG)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 29th day of April 2024)
The workman Nek Mohammad has filed this petition U/S. 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
the ‘Act’) against termination of his services on 27.04.2016 by management. According to the petitioner he was
born in Village Dudahi, P.S. Bishunpura, District Kushi Nagar (UP). His father’s name was Iqbal but he was
adopted by Baitullah R/o. Korea Colliery (MP), now in Chhattisgarh in the year 1965 and adoption date was
executed between his biological parents and adoptive parents on 05.05.1965. He was married with daughter of his
adoptive parents. He was given temporary appointment in 1980 as substitute mazdoor being dependant of Baitullah.
His services were regularized on 11.04.1981, he worked for 34 years when in 2008, he was served a notice by
management with a complaint of one Satyapoojan Mishra that he got appointment as substitute mazdoor on fake
documents claiming himself to be son of Baitullah whereas he was son of Iqbal. He submitted his reply and
proceedings were dropped by management. Again he was issued same notice on 10.09.2014. He submitted his reply
on 13.09.2014. A charge sheet dated 04.06.2015 was issued by management under Clause-26.1 & 26.9 of Certified
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2447
Standing Orders. He filed his reply dated 07.06.2015 to the charge sheet wherein he stated that he was adopted by
Baitullah by the consent of his biological parents and since then, he was member of Baitullah family as his adopted
son. He used name of his adoptive father since thereafter in every record. The management decided to conduct an
enquiry to the charges which was conducted not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry
Officer wrongly recorded a finding that charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted the
enquiry report and illegally ignored his representation on the enquiry report thus passing the impugned punishment
of termination of his services, which is against law. The workman has thus prayed that holding the impugned
punishment against law, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
The management has defended its action and impugned order with a case that there was no illegality
committed during enquiry, the charges were rightly held proved and punishment was also proportionate to the
charges.
Following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings :-
1. Whether the Departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper or not ?
2. Whether the charges are proved from the enquiry ?
3. Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charge ?
4. Relief to which the workman is entitled ?
Issue No.-1 was taken as preliminary issue and was decided holding the departmental enquiry proper and legal. This
order is part of this Award.
Parties were granted opportunity to lead evidence on remaining issues. No evidence was adduced by any of the
parties.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel for management. None appeared for workman. No written argument has
been filed by the any of the parties. I have gone through the record as well.
Issue No.-2:-
As it comes out from the perusal of enquiry papers that defense of the workman during the enquiry, with reference
to the charges was that he was adopted by Baitullah. He produced some unregistered adoption document also during
the enquiry. Since he is a Muslim, his personal law do not recognize adoption. Hence, any so called adoption will
not change his parentage because such an adoption has no force of law. Secondly, there is also evidence on record
collected during the enquiry that at the place of his biological parents, he had mentioned his biological parents in
Government documents maintained there. Hence, in the light of these facts, the finding of the Enquiry Officer
cannot be faulted in law or fact and is affirmed. Issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3 & 4:-
Since these issues are inter connected, they are being taken together.
The charges provide maximum punishment of termination /dismissal. Since, the workman got employment
as substitute labour being dependant of his so called adoptive parents which he was not, his appointment was void as
it was obtained by concealment of material facts. Hence, the punishment also cannot be held excessive to the charge.
Consequently, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Issue No.-3 and 4 are answered accordingly.
In the light of above discussion and findings, following Award is passed.
AWARD
Petition dismissed. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 29/04/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1128.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/40/2017)dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/96/2017-
- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
2448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/40/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22012/96/2016– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N , Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/40/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Shyamlal Baiga
S/o. Late Sukhdev Baiga
Through Secretary, Janta Mazdoor Sangh
O/o. B-36, Store Complex, Amradandi,
PO: Amlai, Colliery, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
Workman
Vs
The General Manager & 2 other
Johilla Area SECL
PO: Naurojabad, Distt.- Umariya (MP)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 30th day of April 2024)
As per letter dated 18/04/2017 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 Notification No. L-
22012/96/2016 IR(CM-II) dt. 18/04/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:
JBP/54/1625
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served.
Parties appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
According to the workman union, the workman Shyamlal Baiga was appointed with the Management on
13.08.1989 and worked on the post of Loader Category-II under Chapaha Colliery, the attendance clerk informed
him that he was transferred and directed him to meet the Manager of Colliery. He went to the Manager and
requested the Manager to give him transfer order which he was not given and Manager directed him to collect the
transfer order after sometime. Thereafter, he went several times to the Manager and requested him to handover the
transfer order he was not given any transfer order. He kept attending his work place and as last resort, he went to
management with a letter on 11.12.2004 and requested the management to take action in his matter but management
refused to receive his letter, hence he sent it on 11.12.2004 by registered post. Management took no action on his
letter. He again contact the General Manager who directed him to collect his transfer order from the Colliery Office.
Thereafter, he contacted the Manager at Colliery and requested him to take him back on duty or dismiss him from
services if they are unable to take him on duty. He was orally informed that he could not be taken back on duty and
he has been removed from services. He was not issued nor was he given any termination order inspite of his request
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2449
to provide the termination order. According to the workman, he was removed from services without giving him
opportunity of hearing which is arbitrary and unjust. The workman side has thus prayed that setting aside his
termination order, he be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
In its written statement of defense, the management has taken a case that the workman last worked at
Umariya (Chapaha) Colliery in 1993 as claimed by him. In fact, he was initially appointed at Birsinghpur Colliery
SECL on 13.08.1989, he was transferred from Birsinghpur Colliery to Chapaha Colliery. He was transferred on
01.07.1994 to Pipariya Colliery vide order dated 01.07.1994 and was relieved on 04.07.1994 with a direction to
report for duty at the place of his transfer Pipariya Colliery. He never reported at Pipariya Colliery on his transfer.
His whereabouts were not known he absented thereafter, hence management initiated disciplinary proceedings
against him for the charge of unauthorized and willful absence, which is a misconduct in the Certified Standing
Orders. He did not participate in the enquiry though notice of the enquiry was sent to him on his residential address
maintained in his service records.
According to management, in fact the workman himself abandoned from the service, hence he was
removed from service. It is further the case of management that the date of superannuation of the workman was
31.05.2025, he raised the dispute after about 20 years of from his absence, hence his claim is barred by unexplained
delay and latches on his part. Management has accordingly requested that the reference be answered against the
workman.
In evidence, the management filed photocopy documents out of which the admitted documents are Ex. M/3
transfer order dated 03.06.1993, Reliving order dated 24.03.1993 issued by management Ex. M/2, Form-B of
workman Ex. M/1, application to Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity, Voter Card, notice of appearance
before Controlling Authority issued to management, reply of management and application of workman, all
photocopies admitted by workman marked Ex. M/4 to M/8. The documents filed by the workman and proved are
Ex. W/1 application dated 11.12.2014 and receipt of registry Ex. W/2. The workman has filed his affidavit as his
examination in chief and has been cross examined by management.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness as its examination in chief, workman has cross examined this
witness.
I have heard arguments of Shri Satyendra Kumar Advocate for workman and Shri Anoop Nair Senior
Counsel for management assisted by Shri Neeraj Kewat Advocate and have gone through the record.
The reference itself is the issue for determination.
As regards the first point in the reference, case of the workman is that he was never served any transfer
order. He kept insisting that transfer order be given him so that he could join at the place of transfer but his this
request was not granted by management. According to the workman he was only informed orally about this transfer.
Management has stated that transfer order was issued in writing, it was pasted on the notice board and was
served on the workman. He was relieved from the place of his posting to join at the place of his transfer alongwith
other co-workers. Management has proved these documents. From perusal of these documents, it is proved that the
transfer order was not oral rather it was in writing and was duly notified on the workman and this issue is answered
accordingly.
As regards the second point in the reference, the case of the workman is that he kept attending the office
till 2014 but was not allowed to work nor was he allowed to sign the attendance register. He has stated this fact in
his statement on oath. Case of management is that the workman was issued transfer order vide office order dated
01.07.1994 and was released to proceed on transfer along with co-workers who were also transferred under the same
order and relieved for joining at place of their transfer. The case and the statement of the workman that he kept
insisting that his transfer order be given to him and that he continuously attended the office from 1994 to 2014 but
was not paid his wages nor was he allowed to sign the attendance register, also no work was allotted him is so
inherently improbable that it cannot be believed by anyone having even least common sense. From evidence on
record, it is established that the workman voluntarily abandoned his service. Learned Counsel for management has
referred to Judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Vijay S. Sathey vs. Indian Airlines, reported in
(2013) 10 SCC 253. The relevant paragraphs of this Judgment are being reproduced as follows :-
“This extract is taken from Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 253 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 760 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 805 at page 257
12. It is a settled law that an employee cannot be termed as a slave, he has a right to abandon the service any
time voluntarily by submitting his resignation and alternatively, not joining the duty and remaining absent for
long. Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it
may amount to voluntary abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end
automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer.
2450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. In Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 1567] this Court held as under : (AIR p. 1570,
para 6)
“6. … there would be the class of cases where long unauthorised absence may reasonably give rise to an
inference that such service is intended to be abandoned by the employee.”
(See also Shahoodul Haque v. Registrar, Coop. Societies [(1975) 3 SCC 108 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 498 : AIR
1974 SC 1896] .)
14. For the purpose of termination, there has to be positive action on the part of the employer while
abandonment of service is a consequence of unilateral action on behalf of the employee and the employer has
no role in it. Such an act cannot be termed as “retrenchment” from service. (See State of Haryana v. Om
Parkash [(1998) 8 SCC 733 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 262] .)
15. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah [AIR 1964 SC 1272] , while dealing with a similar
case, this Court observed : (AIR p. 1275, para 5)
“5. … Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and, normally, such an
intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf.”
A similar view has been reiterated in G.T. Lad v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. [(1979) 1 SCC 590 : 1979
SCC (L&S) 76 : AIR 1979 SC 582]
16. In Syndicate Bank v. Staff Assn. [(2000) 5 SCC 65 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 601] and Aligarh Muslim
University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 965 : AIR 2000 SC 2783] this Court
ruled that if a person is absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can be granted,
he should be treated to have resigned and ceases to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold an
enquiry or to give any notice as it would amount to useless formalities. A similar view has been reiterated
in Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant [(2006) 11 SCC 42 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 327] , Chief Engineer
(Construction) v. Keshava Rao [(2005) 11 SCC 229 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 872] and Bank of Baroda v. Anita
Nandrajog [(2009) 9 SCC 462 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 689] .”
In the light of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the referred case, the
management is held fully justified in law in not reinstating the workman. The workman thus, is held not entitled to
any relief.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman
and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 30/04/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1129.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/36/2018) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22015/06/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/36/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024.
[No. L-22015/06/2018– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2451
Shri Pyare Lal S/o. Late Jagdish
R/o. Village – Dumarpara, PO: Dumarpara,
Naya Baradwar, PS. – Baradwar,
Distt.- Janjgir – Champa (CG) - 495668
Workman
Vs
The Sub Area Manager
Dhelwadih – Singhali Bagdewa Sub Area
SECL Korba Area, PO: Katghora
Distt.- Korba (CG) - 495445
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 07th day of May 2024)
As per letter dated 21/08/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the
‘Act’)as per Notification No. L-22015/06/2018 IR(CM-II) dt. 21/08/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the Action on the part of Sub-area Manager of Dhelwadih – Singhali – Bagdewa Sub-Area of
Korea Area dismissing Shri Pyare Lal S/o. Late Jagdish, General Category-1, vide their letter dated 11.04.2015
from service without conducting proper enquiry and inflicting harsher punishment is appropriate and justified ?
If not, what relief the concerned dismissed workman in the dispute is entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served.
Parties appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
According to the workman, he was appointed by management on compassionate basis as dependant son
of his father Jagdish, who was an employee of management and expired on 11.11.2012. He was issued a charge
sheet on 08.01.2014 alleging misconduct on his part under Clause-26.9 of Certified Standing Orders, which he
denied. Basis of the charge was that he was working as Home Guard at the time he filed his application for
compassionate appointment, hence was not dependant on his late father Jagdish at the time of death of Jagdish. He
concealed this fact thus furnished false information regarding his dependency in getting the employment which is
misconduct under Clause-26.9, being reproduced as follows:-
“26.9
Giving of false information regarding one’s age name, father’s name, qualification etc. in
connection with employment.”
He denied the charge and the management passed the order regarding dismissal of his service vide the
impugned order dated 11.04.2015, without conducting any departmental enquiry against the workman which is in
violation of the Certified Standing Orders as well against the principles of natural justice. Hence, according to the
workman, the order regarding his dismissal is arbitrary and bad in law. The workman has prayed that setting aside
his termination, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
In its written statement of defense, the management has taken a stand that the workman concealed the
fact of his working as a Home Guard with Home Guard Organization and obtained compassionate appointment as
dependant son of his late father which is a misconduct in the standing order, hence he was rightly dismissed from
service.
Both the parties have filed oral and documentary evidence which shall be referred to as and when required.
I have heard arguments of Shri Ram Milan Dey Advocate for workman and Shri Neeraj Kewat Advocate
and have gone through the record.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the only issue arises for determination in the case in
hand is as follows :-
“Whether the dismissal of the workman for the charge under Clause-26.9 of Certified Standing Orders
without holding any departmental enquiry when the charge was denied by the workman is legal ?”
The relevant Clauses of Certified Standing Orders are being reproduced as follows :-
“27.0
Procedure For Dealing with the Cases of Misconduct:-
2452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27.1
MINOR PENALTY: where a workman is charged with a misconduct, which may lead to
imposition of a minor penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations made against him and
shall be given an opportunity to explain his conduct within 48 hours. His explanation, if any, shall be
considered before imposing a minor penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. Provided, however, that
where a workman denies the charges alleged against him, no punishment shall be imposed upon unless
a domestic enquiry has been conducted.
27.2
MAJOR PENALTY: Where a workman is charged with a misconduct, which may lead to the
imposition of a major penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against him and shall be
given an opportunity to explain his conduct within a period of 7 days. On receipt of a workman’s
explanation if it is decided to proceed further an enquiry shall be held. Such enquiry will be conducted
by an officer other than the Officer who has either reported the alleged misconduct or issued the charge-
sheet. AT the enquiry, the employee concerned shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of explaining
and defending his conduct with the assistance of the fellow workmen or Office bearer of the Trade
Union of which he is a member if so requested by him. Where such enquiry relates to the alleged
misconduct of several workman, the enquiry may be held for all the workmen together.
27.2.1 Where a disciplinary proceedings against a workman is contemplated or is pending or where
criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence are under investigation or trial and the
employer is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place workmen under suspension, he may, by an
order in writing, suspend him with effect from such date as may be specified in the order. A statement
setting out in detail the reason for such suspension shall be supplied to the workmen within a week from
the date of suspension.
27.2.2 During the period of his suspension, the workman shall not enter the work premises except with
the permission of the management, nor shall he leave station without the permission of the management.
27.2.3 If during the enquiry it is found that the workman is guilty of a misconduct other than that
stated in the order of suspension and/or the charge sheet, the workman shall be liable to punishment for
such misconduct but before any punishment is imposed on him, he shall be afforded opportunity of
explaining and defending his action in respect of such other misconduct.
27.2.4 The payment os subsistence allowance will be subject to a written declaration by the workman
that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation.
27.2.5 If after enquiry/or conclusion of the criminal proceedings a workman is held guilty of the
charges alleged against him or some other charges brought in the course of the enquiry or is convicted
in the criminal proceedings and is consequently discharged or dismissed, he shall not be entitled to any
remuneration for such period other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him. If a penalty
other than dismissal, discharge or removal is imposed on him or he is exonerated or charges against him
are dropped or he is not convicted in the criminal proceedings, he shall be paid the difference of
subsistence allowance already paid to him and, the wages which he would have got if he had not been
suspended except in case where he is suspended, not exceeding ten days, as a measures of punishment.
27.2.6 No order of discharge or dismissal from service shall be made by an authority lower than the
appointing authority of the workman.
27.2.7 IN awarding the punishment, gravity of the misconduct the previous record of the workman and
any other extenuating or aggravating circumstance, that my exist shall be taken into account. A copy of
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be supplied to the workman concerned.
27.2.8 If a workman refuses to accept a charge sheet order or any other communication served on him
in accordance with these standing orders, a copy thereof shall be sent to him by Registered A/D post to
his local as well as permanent address as recorded with the Company and another copy pasted on the
Notice Board which shall constitute adequate service of such document.”
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the workman could not be awarded major
punishment of dismissal of his services without departmental enquiry when he denied the charges. Hence, the action
of the management in terminating his services is nothing but arbitrary, capricious and against law.
Before parting, it appears proper to mention here that Judicial Notice can be taken of the fact that in Home
Guard Organization, the Home Guard is not a regular employee. He is a volunteer who is called for service as and
when required for which he is paid honorarium. Even if the workman was working as a Home Guard, he cannot be
assumed in any regular and beneficial employment. It is nowhere required that for compassionate appointment as
dependant of a deceased employee, his dependant should be a street beggar.
In the light of above discussion and finding, the action of management in dismissing the services of the
workman is held against law.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2453
The relevant paragraphs of a leading judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase
vs. 2013 SCC OnLine SC 719 at page 358 are being reproduced as follows :-
“This extract is taken from Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC
324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 719 at page 356
38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the
normal rule.
38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating
authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of
misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and
similar other factors.
38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the court of first
instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid
payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman
was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of
service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the
person who makes a positive averment about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a
negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to
specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially
similar emoluments.
38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is
consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages.
However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any
misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full
back wages.
38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of
the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman,
then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the
superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award
passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the
entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The
courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the
employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer
of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back
wages.
38.6. In a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory
authority on the premise that finalisation of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the
parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in
the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an
employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination
of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in most of these
cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of
best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who can ill-afford the luxury
of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt
the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees,
(1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] .
38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)
651] that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the
ratio of the judgments of three-Judge Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979
SCC (L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC
443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is
also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.
2454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
39. Reverting to the case in hand, we find that the management's decision to terminate the appellant's service
was preceded by her suspension albeit without any rhyme or reason and even though the Division Bench of the High
Court declared that she will be deemed to have rejoined her duty on 14-3-2007 and entitled to consequential
benefits, the management neither allowed her to join the duty nor paid wages. Rather, after making a show of
holding inquiry, the management terminated her service vide order dated 15-6-2007. The Tribunal found the action
of the management to be wholly arbitrary and vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal
further found that the allegations levelled against the appellant were frivolous. The Tribunal also took cognizance of
the statement made on behalf of the appellant that she was not gainfully employed anywhere and the fact that the
management had not controverted the same and ordered her reinstatement with full back wages.”
In the light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down, the workman is held entitled to be reinstated with all
back wages and benefits, on the post held by him at the time of his dismissal. He is further held entitled to arrears to
be paid by management within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award in official Gazette, failing which
interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of Award till payment. He is also held entitled to litigation cost Rs.
10,000/- to be paid by management within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award in official Gazette,
failing which interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of Award till payment.
In the light of above discussion and findings, following Award is passed.
AWARD
Holding the action of management in dismissing the workman Pyarelal, General Category-I vide
letter dated 11.04.2015 against law and unjust, he is held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and
benefits, on the post held by him at the time of his dismissal. He is further held entitled to arrears to be paid
by management within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award in official Gazette, failing which
interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of Award till payment. He is also held entitled to litigation cost Rs.
10,000/- to be paid by management within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award in official
Gazette, failing which interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of Award till payment.
DATE:- 07/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1130.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्लू. सी. एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV
(एलसी/आर/81/2017) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/123/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/81/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of W.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22012/123/2016– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/81/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Mohd. Naseem Siddqui
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2455
Zonal Mahamantri
Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association
Ward No.-10, Gudhi, P.O.- Palachaurai
Distt.- Chhindwara (MP)
Workman
Versus
Regional General Manager
Western Coal Field Ltd. Kanhan Area
Dungariya, P.O.- Dungariya,
Distt.- Chhindwara (MP)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 29th day of April 2024)
As per letter dated 05/06/2017 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 Notification No. L-
22012/123/2016 IR(CM-II) dt. 05/06/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:
II,
III
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. The
workman side did not appear and did not file any statement of claim. Management has file its written statement of
defense.
In its written statement of defense, the management has taken a stand that NCWA VIII was in force at the
time of retirement of the workman Rauf Khan on 30.06.2011 which does not contain this provision, hence, the claim
of the applicant cannot be considered in law. Accordingly, management prayed that the reference be answered
against the applicant.
Both the sides have laid evidence in form documents and affidavits to be referred to as and when required.
I have heard argument of learned Senior Counsel Shri Anoop Nair assisted by Advocate Shri Shubham
Nanepag for management. None was present from the side of workman union for argument. No written submissions
have been filed by any of the parties. I have gone through the record as well.
On the perusal of record in the light of argument the following limited point arises for determination in this
case.
Whether provisions of NCWA applicable at the time of superannuation of the workman Rauf Khan
on 30.06.2011 will govern the claim of the applicant ?
No doubt Clause-10.4.4 and 9.4.4 provide for appointment one dependant of an employee who has
superannuated in the service of management on the vacancy arising out of this superannuation but in the NCWA’s
which came in operation after NCWA IV i.e. NCWA V to NCWA IX in operation on the date of filing written
statement of defense by management, there is no such provision. Management has referred to a Judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in W.P. No.-4996/2015 Vasudev Raut vs. Chairman, Coal India, wherein it has been
held that the NCWA in force at the time of superannuation of the workman will guide the claim of the applicant
regarding appointment as dependant of superannuated workman. In another case Indian Bank & Others vs. Promila
& Others (2020) 2 SCC 729, on the point whether a claim for compassionate appointment under scheme of a
particular year could be decided based on subsequent scheme that came into course much after the claim, it was held
that the claim could be decided on the basis of the scheme in force at the time of death of the employee. On this
analogy also the claim of the present applicant will be decided on the basis of NCWA VIII in force at the time of
superannuation of workman Rauf Khan on 30.06.2011 which does not contain any such provision.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman
and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 29/04/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
2456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1131.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/99/2017) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/06/2017-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/99/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024
[No. L-22012/06/2017– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO.CGIT/LC/R/99/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Dy. General Secretary
Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation
Federation Office, Chirimiri, PO: Chirimiri
District Korea (CG) - 497449
Workman
Versus
The Senior Manager
SECL, Duman Hill Group of Mines
PO: Sonawani, Distt. Korea (CG)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 1st day of May 2024)
As per letter dated 11/07/2017 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per
Notification No. L-22012/06/2017 IR(CM-II) dt. 11/07/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action on the part of management of Duman Hill Group of Mines of SECL Chirimiri area
in dismissing the service of Shri Kaloo S/o. Suma w.e.f. 10.10.2015 after rendering a service period of 25 years on
misconduct ground without properly following the principles of natural justice is appropriate and justified ? If
not, what service benefit Shri Kaloo S/o. Sooma espoused by the General Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Workers
Federation Chirimiri, District Korea (CG) is entitled to ? ”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served.
Parties appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.
According to the workman union, the workman Kaloo S/o. Suma was first appointed as a General Mazdoor
Category-I on 22.03.1990 on dependant appointment under the provisions of NCWA-III according to which if a
workman died while in service or was declared medically unfit by a board constituted by management his dependant
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2457
is provided employment. Workman Suma was declared medically unfit and Kaloo, who claimed himself to be
dependant son of Suma was given appointment in place of Suma. He worked with the management for 25 years
when a complaint was made to management that the real name of Kaloo was Lingraj who is S/o. Balaji and he
obtained job in the name of dependant of medically unfit workman Suma by falsely and fraudulently. The
management served a charge sheet to the workman Kaloo leveling following charges against him under 26.09 and
26.22 of Standing Order which is as follows:-
26.09:-
Furnishing wrong information with respect to name, age, father’s name, qualification etc. with
respect to employment.
26.22:-
Knowingly doing an at which breaks discipline or which is against the interest of management.
Thus the basis of the charges that the workman Kaloo got dependant appointment by claiming himself to be
Son of worker Suma who was medically unfit, whereas the workman was Kaloo S/o. Balaji and his real name was
Lingraj.
According to the workman union, a departmental enquiry was conducted by management against all the
principles of natural justice and against the rules. The Enquiry Officer wrongly held the charges proved against the
workman. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly accepted the enquiry report and passed punishment disproportionate
to the charge.
Management has rebutted the allegations with a case that enquiry was rightly conducted, charges were
rightly held proved and punishment is also proportionate to the charges.
Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings.
Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by management is just, legal and proper ?
On the basis of the evidence, this preliminary issue was decided in favour of management holding the
departmental enquiry legal and proper vide order dated 13.02.2024. This order is part of this Award.
Following additional issues were also framed on the basis of pleadings:-
1) Whether the charges are proved on the basis of enquiry ?
2) Whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the charges ?
3) Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on these additional issues, no evidence was adduced by any
of the parties on these additional issues. Management has filed and proved enquiry papers Ex. M/1 to M/42, to be
referred to as and when required.
None was present from the side of workman union. No written argument filed by them. Argument of
learned Counsel for management Shri Neeraj Kewat were heard by me and the record has also been perused.
Issue No.-1:-
The charges against the workman were as follows:-
26.09:-
Furnishing wrong information with respect to name, age, father’s name, qualification etc. with
respect to employment.
26.22:-
Knowingly doing an act which breaks discipline or which is against the interest of management.
The settled law is that the standard of proof required to prove a charge during departmental enquiry and in
criminal trial is different. In the former, charge is to be proved to the extent of preponderance whereas in the later,
charge is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and
independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd.
vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255
Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond
all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who
upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to
prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.
2458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India,
(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)
In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State
Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7
SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417
(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,
it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution
are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a
departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of
proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and
the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."
In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite
distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.
In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad
High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC
425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two
proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different
objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of
enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules
the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of
proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubts, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be
imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure
with respect to standard of proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of
departmental enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt"
has also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of
a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make
satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar
to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case. "
In the case in hand, it comes out from perusal of statements of witnesses examined during enquiry that the
applicant workman Kaloo had disclosed that his father’s name was Suma and by representing himself to be
dependant son of Suma, a worker who was declared medically unfit, obtained employment as his dependant. The
witnesses also stated that during the enquiry that the real name was Lingraj who was son of Balaji. It has also come
in the statements of the applicant workman during enquiry that he told Suma as his father and father-in-law both. He
further took a case that in fact, he was adopted by Suma according to customs of his community and was married to
D/o. Suma according to custom. Since, he declares himself a Hindu, Hindu Personal Law will apply in his case. For
a valid and legal adoption, the formalities of adoption, enumerated in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, are
required to be fulfilled and registration of adoption deed is required. In the case in hand, there is no evidence during
the enquiry that these formalities were followed nor is there any registered adoption deed produced during enquiry.
In the light of above discussion, it is held that the workman could not prove is legal adoption before the
Enquiry Officer. Hence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding the charges proved cannot be faulted in law
or fact because without lawful adoption, the applicant workman could not claim himself to be the adopted son and
dependant of Suma. Issue no.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2 :-
The settled proposition of law is that Courts will not interfere in the punishment unless it is found to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charges.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the
scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2459
exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
thereof.”
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be
disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching
a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after
examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past
conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their
sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the
department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.”
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long
line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal
position in the following words:
“11.
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of
logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would
not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court
should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is
judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“8.
……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a
result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the
punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges
found to be proved.”
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the
disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the
imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material
procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The
exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or
appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past
conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that
the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be
maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the
tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587
7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy
of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test
to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
2460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary
matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to
be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G.
Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999)
5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000)
1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)
In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:
“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of
confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from
challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires
absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.”
In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of
confidence in the employee, observing that:
“Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management.
Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of
the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be
alleged and proved.”
In the case in hand management has successfully proved the charges as mentioned above. These charges
are punishable with major punishment including dismissal, termination or removal. Gaining employment on false
particulars is an act of moral turpitude. Considering the nature of charges in the light of above discussion and settled
principles on this point the punishment of his dismissal from service cannot be held excessive to the charge proved.
On the basis of above discussion the punishment is held not disproportionate to the charge and issue
no.-2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3 :-
In the light of findings recorded, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
No other point was argued.
Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-
A W A R D
Holding the action on the part of management of Duman Hill Group of Mines of SECL Chirimiri
area in dismissing the service of Shri Kaloo S/o. Suma w.e.f. 10.10.2015 legal, appropriate and justified, the
workman is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 01/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1132.—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
–
सह
–
] िबलृुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर/96/2008) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22015/20/2008-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/96/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024.
[No. L-22015/20/2008– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2461
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/96/2008
Present- P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd)
Shri Taran Singh,
Organiser, H.M.K.P. Bijuri,
PO: South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
Workmen/Union
Versus
The General Manager
Hasdeo Area of SECL,
PO: South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
Management
(A W A R D)
(Passed on this 02nd day of May 2024)
As per letter Dated 09/07/2008, Notification No. L-22015/20/2008-IR(CM-II) by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labor, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per .The
dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of Hind Mazdoor, Kissan Panchayat for regularization of 132 contract
workers (as per list enclosed) by Management is legal and justified? To what relief the claimants are
entitled?”
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
According to the statement of claim put up by the Union on behalf of the workmen, as per list enclosed
with the Notification these 132 workmen were working in Hasdeo Area of the Management company, a Government
of India undertaking. These workmen were engaged by the Management through a so called contractor Hasnand
Motwani,the contractor in Bijuri Area for mining jobs of prohibited nature.
Also, it was alleged that these workmen were engaged in work of prohibited nature in violation of
prohibition Notification u/s 10 of The Contract Labour Regulation Act1 970 (in short CLRA). In fact, the workmen
were deployed by Management for the purposes of paying wages lesser than the wages paid to employees of the
Management doing the same job. The Management engaged a contractor who has always been smoke screen and
camouflage in the eyes of law. The Management, after denying that these workers were engaged by them, admitted
before Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh that these workers worked for Management as contract workers.
According to the Union, the real employer is the Management of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short
SECL) and not the ghost intermediary contractor, hence there is a employer- employee relationship between the
workmen and Management of SECL.
Accordingly, it has been prayed that the reference be answered holding the action of Management in not
regularizing the services of these 132 workmen, as per the list annexed with the Notification, illegal and unjustified
and further declare them entitled to all the consequential benefits, and grant further reliefs required in the interest of
justice.
The Management of SECL has, in its statement of defense, pleaded that these applicant/workmen were
never engaged by the Management company nor were they engaged for work of prohibited nature. The identity of
the 132 workmen is also not established. The case of the workmen that they worked for more than 190-240 days in
any year under the direct control and supervision of the management company was also denied. It was also denied
that the work of driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground was taken from the
applicant/workmen continuously during the relevant period. It was further pleaded by the Management that it was
2462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the practice that for short works, short term contracts are given, the period of which does not exceed six months. For
the purpose of staring a new Mines, Tender Dated 18/12/1999 was issued by Management from registered
contractors for the work of open excavation of No 1&2 incline C-Seam, Somna incline of Bijuri Sub Area. Duration
of the work was from 13/03/1991 to 12/06/1991.The contract was awarded to registered contractor Hansraj Motwani
who had requisite license in CLRA and an agreement was signed between the Management and the contractor
.Thereafter, work order was issued to the contractor. The revised estimate of the work of construction of open
excavation for No 1 &2 incline of C-seam (Somna) incline of Bijuri was issued from time to time. The contractor
was left free to employ workers of his choice and the Management of the company did not have any hold or control
over them except that to see that their wages are paid by contractors in presence of representative of management as
required under ‘CLRA’. The Management has further denied that the requirements under Contract Labor
Regulation& Abolition Act 1970 have not been complied with and has pleaded that the work was never supervised
by the officials of the company except that the execution of the overall work was used to be supervised by the
official of the company. Vocational training was given to workers as it was required under Rules. The labour
payment certificate was issued by the Management after completion of work allotted and accounts were settled.
Accordingly, it has been pleaded that since the workmen were the employees of the contractor they could have best
claimed relief from contractor who is a necessary party to the reference. Accordingly, the management has prayed
that the reference be answered against the workmen. The management has further denied the locus standi of the
applicant Union to raise the dispute on behalf of the workmen.
The workmen Union has filed rejoinder wherein they have denied the pleadings of Management.
In evidence, the Union has filed photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh Dt05/03/2008
in WP No 1758/1998, directing the Union of India to send reference to this Tribunal Ex W/1, Letter of Ministry to
the Labour Commissioner in the light of the said order Ex W/2, Notification of Government of India dated
09/07/2008,ExhibitW/3 & Intimation of the reference to Union ExW/4,The Union also filed list of the workmen in
the reference with their verified photographs and other details.
2.
The workmen / Union has also filed affidavits of witness Gayadass. the staff of the Contractor, and
workmen, Swamidass, Rohit Prasad, Kunwar Singh, Kishan s/o Nanhu, Narayan Prasad,Indrapal,Kodulal,Lekhram/,
who have been cross examined by Management. Workmen Besahulal, Mahendra Singh, Lalloo, Kamta Prasad
,Sonsai, Bhaiyalal, Nehru, Ramprasad, Komaldass, Mahesh, MunniBai, Gayadass, Bhagwan Dass, BandhuDass,
RamewshGiri, Ramkripal s/o Banaras, Ramkripal s/oGhogha, Ramlal,s/o Besahu, Ramlal s/o s/oSattu and 79 other
workmen have also filed their affidavits as their examination in chief but have not been cross examined by
Management.
Management has filed the affidavits of its witnesses Kamlesh Gautam Colliery Manager,Maya Prakash
Mishra the then Senior Manager and Jayant Kumar Mishra Manager (Law) as their examination in chief out of
which Kamlesh Gautam and Maya Prakash Mishra have been cross examined.
The Management has further proved the Exhibit documents following Exhibit:-
1. Exhibit M-1Tender Notice.
2. Exhibit M-2 work agreement..
3.Exhibit M-3 work order
4. Exhibit M-4 photocopy of license of contractor
5. Exhibit M-4 The registration of the Management in CLRA
6. Exhibit M-5, Map on the basis of which the work was given to the
Contractor.
I have heard arguments of Advocate Mr.R.C.Shrivastava, learned Counsel for Workmen and Mr. Anoop
Nair, learned Senior Counsel for Management. . I have gone through the records.
From the perusal of the record and in the light of rival arguments, following issues, arise in the present
case.
“1:-
Whether the workmen were engaged in work of prohibited category.
2:-
Whether the alleged contracts where sham and bogus, rather a camouflage to deprive the
workmen of their benefits.
3:-
Whether the disengagement of workmen is justified in law and fact.
4:-
Whether the workmen are entitled to any benefits.”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2463
Issue No 1-
According to the respective claims of the parties in this case, it is alleged from the side of the Workmen
that the said contract is of prohibited category on ground that it was work prohibited by Notification of Government
of India dated 21-1-88.
Section1(5) of the CLRA Act is relevant here which is being reproduced as follows:-
“(a)
It shall not apply to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is
performed.
(b)
If a question arises whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual
nature, the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or,
as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision shall be final.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this sub-section, work performed in an establishment shall not be
deemed to be of an intermittent nature—
i. if it was performed for more than one hundred and twenty days in the preceding twelve months, or
ii. if it is of a seasonal character and is performed for more than six months in a year.”
Learned Counsel for the Workmen/Union has further referred to Clause 11.5.1 of the agreement of
NCWA 4/5 which reads as follows:-
“Industries shall not apply labors through contractor or engage contractor’s labor on jobs of permanent
and perennial nature.”
13.Learned Counsel further refers to Notification of Government of India dated 21-6-1988 on record which
prohibits contract labor in following jobs :-
SCHEDULE
1.
Raising or raising-cum-selling of coal;
2.
Coal loading and unloading:
3.
Over burden removal and earth cutting:
4.
Soft coke manufacturing
5.
Driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground:
Provided that his Notification shall not apply to the following categories:-
(a) Quarries in the North-East Coal Field which can only be worked for a few months every year due to
heavy rainfall in the area:
(b) Quarries located by the side of the riven in Pency valley and similar other patch deposits which can
only be worked when the level of river has gone down and during non-rainy seasons;
(c) Loading coal when there is mechanical failure, failure of power or irregular supply of wagon by the
railway; and
(d) Cutting stone drifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short duration, say up to six
months.
It is in the argument of learned Counsel of Workmen that since there was in prohibition of NCWA and
CLRA Act, as mentioned above, hence the work for which the so called contractor is alleged to have been engaged
of prohibited nature which could not be done through contractor. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for
Management has submitted that the evidence on record as well documents regarding the issuing of tender and work
agreement as well as work order show that the said got executed through the contractor was not of prohibitory
category as mentioned in the Notification dated 21-6-1988. The Management side has referred to the statement of its
witness Kamleshwar Gautam., Colliery Manager Mining who has stated in his affidavit filed as his examination-in-
chief that for the purpose of starting of new mine, certain earth works are required to be done which are
temporary/intermittent and not prohibited under the provision of CLRA Act, were got done by contractor after the
tender process. He further stated that the contract terminated on the completion of the work and also that the work to
open excavation for 1&2 no. of incline of C-seam Somna incline of Bijuri Sub Area granted to Hansanand Motwani,
the successful bidder contractor after inviting tender. Work agreement was entered into between the Management
and the contractor who had all the requisite licenses under CLRA. Thereafter, work order was issued to the
contractor. The period required for completion of the work was from 13/03/1991 to 12/06/1991.The said contractor
was awarded extension of time up to 30/12/1991 for executing the contract. Labour payment certificate was issued
2464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by Management after completion of the work. Also, he has stated that the Management is registered Principal
employer in CLRA.
This witness has proved these documents. One other document filed by Management, admitted by
workmen/Union, requires to be referred here is the excavation map prepared before excavation which is prepared by
CMPDI. This map is the blue print regarding the area which is to be excavated for mining. This document shows
the proposed area where the mining activity is to be conducted
As submitted by the learned Counsel for the workmen, the work allotted was of driving of stone drifts and
miscellaneous stone cutting underground hence it was a prohibited job for which Notification under Section 10(1) of
CLRA Act was issued in 1988.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for Management that in fact the work
was allotted for open excavation of incline. Learned counsel has referred to the Proviso-D of the said Notification in
this respect. Further, it has been submitted that in fact excavation, of incline was taken from the workmen wherein
cutting stone rifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short duration say upto six months is
exempted from prohibition. Also it has been submitted that unforeseen stone layers coming in the way while
executing the work of drivage of inclined shaft are to be of short duration hence cannot be covered under the
prohibition as prohibited work. This argument has been rebutted by learned Counsel for workmen/Union with an
argument that evidence on record in form of statement of witnesses and documents has proved that in the garb of
excavation of incline, in the so called agreement, the work of driving of stone drifts and misc. stone, underground
cutting was taken from the workmen. Learned counsel has referred to the statement of the workmen witness in this
respect firstly. The workmen witnesses have consistently stated that he was engaged by management in Somna
Mines of Bijuri sub-area within Hasdeo area of SECL, for construction of two inclines along with 131 other
labourers. They did removal of mud up to 3 meter down the earth, thereafter the stone drift was used for cutting the
stone in which all the labourers were engaged. This work was done in 3 shifts per day. All the labourers were given
training by the management and were issued Vocational Training Certificate by management after training. The
management had prepared there Form-B as per Rules. Their attendance was recorded by the clerks of the
management in Form-C. Their work was supervised by Supervisors, Mining Sirdars, Overmen and the Manager of
the Mines. These witnesses have further stated that for operating the stone drift inside the Mines, the instruments
and apparatus was supplied by the management. They used to load the stones after blast and also used to operate the
other machines. The cap lamp, safety cap and shoes were also provided by management before their entry inside the
Mines. In their cross examination, these witnesses have mainly denied that they were engaged by the contractor,
they have also denied that they were paid wages by the contractor and have stated that in fact their wages was paid
by management. It is the admitted the case of management initially the work was to be done within the period from
13.03.1991 to 12.06.1991 but this period was extended upto 30.12.1991 and the estimate was also revised, the
Labour Payment Certificate and paper regarding revised estimate proved by management Ex. M/6 & M/5
respectively also shows that this work continued till 30.12.1991.
The witness Banarsi Lal examined from the side of workman union who happens to be an employee of the
contractor have also fully corroborated the aforesaid statements of the workman witnesses. In contrast, there is on
record of the statement of the Colliery Manager Kamlesh Gautam who has corroborated the case of the management
as stated in its written statement of claim. In his cross examination he admits that he is working in this Colliery since
05.04.2020, hence naturally he does not have firsthand knowledge of the facts prevailing during the period of
13.03.1991 to 30.12.1991 at the site. The other management witness who has filed his affidavit in support of
management has stated in his cross examination that he never visited the area since 2010. His affidavit was drafted
by management and was sent to him and thereafter he signed his affidavit. No much credit can be given to this
witness in light of his this statement in his cross examination.
Hence, in the light of these facts, the witnesses from the side of workman union are held to be more
reliable and accordingly the allegations of the workman union that these workman were engaged by
management, also that they were paid by management, their work was supervised by management, they
worked at the site of management, management provided vocational training and instruments to them for the
work and that they were engaged in stone cutting for the Mines also in loading the stones which is prohibited
activity in notification of 1988 referred earlier are held proved.
Hence, the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for management that it could not be detected in advance,
fails in the light of above discussion. It is held proved with the work continued for more than six months,
hence on the basis of these proved facts Proviso-D of the Notification could not apply to the case in hand on
the basis of the evidence as discussed above, it is held proved that the workmen were engaged in driving of
stone drifts and misc. stone cutting underground while taking the work of drivage of Incline which was
known to the management in advance and they were not of a short duration of six months rather they
continued up to more than six months.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2465
Accordingly, the claim of the workmen Union that the work done was prohibited vide Notification of July-
21-1998 and was classified in a prohibited category which could not be taken by contract labor as proved under
Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.
On the basis of the finding recorded above holding that, the work was of prohibited nature as
provided under Clause 5 of Schedule of prohibited works in the prohibition Notification of June-21-88 , Issue
No.1is answered in favor of workmen.
Issue No 2-
Before entering into examination of evidence on this issue produced from both the sides, it is proper to
refer the case laws referred to by both the side learned counsel in this respect is as under-
The learned Counsel for workmen/Union has referred to case law
Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and others, (1978)4 Supreme
Court Cases 257. The relevant portion is reproduced below: -
“Labor and Industrial Law – Industrial Disputes Act 1947 – Section 2(s) – Employer and employee
relationship – Workmen employed by independent contractor to work in employer’s factory –
Whether “workmen” – Tests for determining
The petitioner is a factory owner manufacturing ropes. A number of workmen were engaged to
make ropes but they were hired by contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get
such work done. When 29 of those workmen were denied employment, an industrial dispute was
referred by the State Government and the award was attacked on the ground that the workmen were
not workmen of the petitioner but only of the contractor. The High Court rejected the contention.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court.
Held:
The facts found are that the work done by the workmen was an integral part of the industry
concerned, that the raw material was supplied by the management, that the factory premises belonged
to the management, that the equipment used also belonged to the management, and that the finished
product was taken by the management for its own trade. The workmen were broadly under the
control of the management and defective articles were directed to be rectified by the
management. This concatenation of circumstances is conclusive that the workmen were the
workmen of the petitioner. (Para-2)
The true test is where a worker or group of workers labor to produce goods or services and
these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has
economic control over the workers’ subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for any
reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with
whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contrctu is of no consequence,
when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the naked
truth is discerned, and especially since it is one of the myriad devices resorted to by managements to
avoid the responsibility when labor legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer based on
Arts. 38, 32, 42, 43 and 43A. If livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labor rendered to
produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of enterprise, the absence of direct
relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries cannot snap the real life-bond. If, however,
there is total dissociation, in fact, between the disowning management and aggrieved workmen, the
employer is in substance and in real life-term, by another.
Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Gujrat Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995-II-LLJ-790-
held-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Sec. 2(k), 2(s), 10(2) – Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act
1970- Sec.10 – Abolition of contract labor – industrial dispute – jurisdiction of Labor Court under
Industrial Dispute Act – Jurisdiction of Appropriate Government has exclusive jurisdiction to decide in
regard to abolition of contract labor – section 10 of the Contract Labor Act would come into play only in
cases of genuine contract and not when contract is sham or camouflage – contract Labor abolition act does
not provide for status of the contract labor after abolition – Industrial Tribunal whether have jurisdiction to
direct principal employer to absorb erstwhile workmen of the contractor and also determine the terms and
conditions – Industrial adjudicator will determine the status of a workmen or abolition of contract labor, if
industrial dispute was pending before him on date of abolition of contract labor system by appropriate
government – workmen of erstwhile contractor can raise dispute on the basis that they are workmen of
2466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
principal employer and dispute in such cases would be not for abolition of contract labor, but on the footing
that workmen were always employees of principal employer - “
Secretary, Haryana Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and others, AIR-1999-SC-1160. Held-
“(E) Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act (37 of 1970), S.10 – Contract Labor – Absorption
in service- Electricity Board – Work of keeping plants and station clean and hygienic awarded to
contractor- work not of seasonal nature – contract itself stipulating number of employees to be
engaged by Contractor – Overall control of working of contract labor including administrative
control remaining with the Board – Board neither registered as principal employer nor contractor
was licensed contractor – Contract system was thus a mere camouflage which could be easily pierced
and employer employee relationship between Board and employee easily visualized – Employees who
have worked for more than 240 days cannot therefore be denied absorption.”
Learned counsel has referred following paragraphs (Paras 15, 17, 19), being reproduced as follows-
It would in this context, however, be convenient to note the observations of the High Court as
below:-
“The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the findings of fact arrived at by the
Labor Court was not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. This plea cannot be accepted in as
much as the Labor Court has referred to the whole of the evidence lead in the case before coming to
such a conclusion. Otherwise, also in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.K.
Panda’s case (supra) the findings of fact arrived at by the Labor Court cannot be set aside in writ
jurisdiction particularly when it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record but based only on
appreciation of evidence. Keeping in view the nature of the work being carried on by the petitioner,
the nature of duties which were performed by the respondents-workmen, the continuity of the work
for which the labor was employed and the fact that the wages were paid by the petitioner-employer
who supervised and controlled not only the attendance but also discipline of the workmen in the
discharge of their duties and keeping in view the conditions of contract of the employer with
Kashmira Singh, Contractor, there is no other conclusion which can be arrived at except the one that
there existing a relationship of employer and workmen between the contesting parties and the Labor
Court had rightly passed the award which is impugned in this petition.”
As noticed above Draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting a
social and beneficial piece of legislation specially on the wake of the new millennium. The democratic
polity ought to survive with full vigour: socialist status as enshrined in the Constitution ought to be
given its full play and it is in this perspective the question arises – is it permissible in the new
millennium to decry the cry of the labor force desirous of absorption after working for more than 240
days in an establishment and having their workings supervised and administered by an agency within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution – the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative – the
law courts exist for the society and in the event law courts feel the requirement in accordance with
principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the law courts ought rise up to the occasion to meet
and redress the expectation of the people. The expression ‘regulation’ cannot possibly be read as
contra public interest but in the interest of public.
19-It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in which it is found that there was any genuine
contract labor system prevailing with the Board. If it was a genuine contract system, then obviously, it
had to be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labor Regulation and Abolition Act after
following the procedure laid down therein. However, on the facts of the present case, it was found by
the Labor Court and as confirmed by the High Court that the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was
a mere name lender and had procured labor for the Board from the open market. He was almost a
broker or an agent of the Board for that purpose. The Labor Court also noted that the Management
witness Shri A.K. Chaudhary also could not tell whether Shri Kahsmir Singh was a licensed
contractor or not. That workmen had made a statement that Shri Kashmir Singh was not a licensed
contractor. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that factually there was no genuine contract
system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as only the principal
employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed contractor employing labor on his own account. It is also
pertinent to note that nothing was brought on record to indicate that even the Board at the relevant
time, was registered as principal employer under the Contract Labor Regulation and Abolition Act.
Once the Board was not a principal employer and the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was not a
licensed contractor under the Act, the inevitable conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect
that the so called contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in
almost a transparent veil which could easily be pierced and the real contractual relationship between
the Board, on the one hand, and the employees, on the other, could be clearly visualized.’
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2467
Bharat Bank Limited Vs. Employees of Bharat Bank Limited, AIR 1950 SC 188.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has got wide power in given
circumstances, it can create contract between parties in the interest of justice. No other Courts vested
with such power.
On the other hand learned Senior Counsel for the Management referred to a judgment of Supreme Court in
case The Director SAIL India vs. Ispat Khadan Mazdoor Union Civil Appeal no 8081-8082 of 2011 reported
in AIR 2019 SC 3601. Para 33,35,39,41,44,46,48,49 have been specifically referred to by learned counsel as
follows:-
Before we may advert to examine the question in the instant appeals any further, it will be
apposite to take note of the legal effect of the prohibition Notification issued by the appropriate
Government in exercise of power under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act and its exposition by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others (supra) overruling the judgment in Air
India Statutory Corporation and Others (supra).
The legal consequence of Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, has been noticed in paragraph 68, 88,
105 and 125 as follows: 24 "68. We have extracted above Section 10 of the CLRA Act which empowers
the appropriate Government to prohibit employment of contract labor in any process, operation or other
work in any establishment, lays down the procedure and specifies the relevant factors which shall be
taken into consideration for issuing Notification under subsection (1) of Section 10. It is a common
ground that the consequence of prohibition Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act,
prohibiting employment of contract labor, is neither spelt out in Section 10 nor indicated anywhere in
the Act.
In our view, the following consequences follow on issuing a Notification under Section 10(1) of
the CLRA Act:
(1)
contract labor working in the establishment concerned at the time of issue of Notification will
cease to function;
(2)
the contract of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labor comes to
an end;
(3)
no contract labor can be employed by the principal employer in any process, operation or other
work in the establishment to which the Notification relates at any time thereafter;
(4)
the contract labor is not rendered unemployed as is generally assumed but continues in the
employment of the contractor as the Notification does not sever the relationship of master and
servant between the contractor and the contract labor;
(5)
the contractor can utilize the services of the contract labor in any other establishment in respect
of which no Notification under Section 10(1) has been issued where all the benefits under the
CLRA Act which were being enjoyed by it, will be available;
25 (6) if a contractor intends to retrench his contract labor, he can do so only in conformity with the
provisions of the ID Act. The point now under consideration is: whether automatic absorption of
contract labor working in an establishment, is implied in Section 10 of the CLRA Act and follows as a
consequence on issuance of the prohibition Notification there under. We shall revert to this aspect
shortly. 88. If we may say so, the eloquence of the CLRA Act in not spelling out the consequence of
abolition of contract labor system, discerned in the light of various reports of the Commissions and the
Committees and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, appears to be that Parliament intended
to create a bar on engaging contract labor in the establishment covered by the prohibition Notification,
by a principal employer so as to leave no option with him except to employ the workers as regular
employees directly. Section 10 is intended to work as a permanent solution to the problem rather than to
provide a onetime measure by departmentalizing the existing contract labor who may, by a fortuitous
circumstance be in a given establishment for a very short time as on the date of the prohibition
Notification. It could as well be that a contractor and his contract labor who were with an establishment
for a number of years were changed just before the issuance of prohibition Notification. In such a case
there could be no justification to prefer the contract labor engaged on the relevant date over the contract
labor employed for a longer period earlier. These may be some of the reasons as to why no specific
provision is made for automatic absorption of contract labor in the CLRA Act. 105. The principle that a
beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is
intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided
whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the
legislature. We have already noticed above the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the
2468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conditions of service of the contract labor and 26 authorizes in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labor system by the appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in subsection (2) of
Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, in our
view, provides no ground for absorption of contract labor on issuing Notification under subsection (1) of
Section 10. Admittedly, when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labor as a consequence of
issuing Notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences
specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labor in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of
the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of interpretative
legislation and as such, clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on consideration of various
aspects, that it is difficult to accept that Parliament intended absorption of contract labor on issue of
abolition Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
125.
The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1)(a) Before 2811986, the determination of
the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in
relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate
Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under
consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any
specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine
or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the
Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other
establishment the Government of the State in which 27 the establishment was situated, would be the
appropriate Government; (b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the
answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking
concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on: (a) by or under the authority
of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then
the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other
establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the
appropriate Government.
(2)(a) A Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labor
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate
Government:
(1)
after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may
be, and (2) having regard to (i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labor in the
establishment in question, and (ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in subsection (2) of
Section 10;
(b)
In as much as the impugned Notification issued by the Central Government on 9121976 does
not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the
date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed
or no action taken giving effect to the said Notification on or before 28 the date of this judgment, shall
be called in question in any tribunal or court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality
and/or it has been implemented.
(3)
Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by
necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labor on issuing a Notification by
the appropriate Government under subsection (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract
labor, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal
employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labor working in the establishment
concerned.
(4)
We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case
[(1997) 9 SCC 377] prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial
adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labor following the
judgment in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377] shall hold good and that the same shall not be
set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has
been given effect to and it has become final.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2469
(5)
On issuance of prohibition Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting
employment of contract labor or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract
labor in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any
given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labor for work of the establishment under a
genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations
so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a
mere camouflage, the so called contract labor will have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labor in the establishment
concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6
hereunder.
29 (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition Notification under Section 10(1) of the
CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government,
prohibiting employment of contract labor in any process, operation or other work of any establishment
and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends
to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labor, if otherwise found
suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also
relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications."
33.
The exposition of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court made it clear that
neither Section 10 nor any other provision in the CLRA Act provides for automatic absorption of
contract labor on issuing a Notification by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of CLRA
Act.
Consequently, the principal employer is not required or is under legal obligation by operation of
law to absorb the contract labor working in the establishment. 34. This court in Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and Others (supra) further held that on a issuance of Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA
Act, prohibiting employment of contract labor in any process, operation or other work, if un 30
industrial dispute is raised by any contract labor in regard to condition of service, it is for the industrial
adjudicator to consider whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labor for work of
the establishment under a genuine contract, or as a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of statutory benefits. If the contract is found
to be sham, nominal or camouflage, then the so called labor will have to be treated as direct employee of
the principal employer and the industrial adjudicator should direct the principal employer to regularize
their services in the establishment subject to such conditions as it may specify for that purpose in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
35.
On the other hand, if the contract is found to be genuine and a prohibition Notification has
been issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, in respect of the establishment, the principal employer
intending to employ regular workmen for the process, operation or other work of the establishment in
regard to which the prohibition Notification has been issued, it shall give 31 preference to the erstwhile
contract labor if otherwise found suitable, if necessary by giving relaxation of age as it appears to be in
fulfillment of the mandate of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
36.
It may be noted that the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the
judgments of this Court in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Others Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and
Establishments and Another 4; Hussain bhai, Calicut Vs. Alath Factory The zhilali Union, Kozhikode
and Others5: Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. and Others6 and these cases
have been considered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and
Others(supra) of which a detailed reference has been made by us.
37.
Tests which are to be applied to find out whether the person is an employee or an independent
contractor in finding out whether the contract labor agreement is sham, nominal or a 4 1974(3) SCC
498 5 1978(4) SCC 257 6 1999(6) SCC 439 32 mere camouflage has been examined by this Court in
International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers' Union and Another? by
the two Judge Bench of this Court. The relevant paras are as under: " 38. The tests that are applied to
find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in
finding out whether the contract labor agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For
example, if the contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, the labor supplied by the contractor will work
under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the
worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to
2470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the
contractor.
39.
The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labor, when
such labor is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the
worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the
employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides
where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the
contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the
supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is
with the contractor."
38.
These are the broad tests which have been laid down by this Court in examining the nature and
control of the employer and 7 2009 (13) SCC 374 33 whether the agreement pursuant to which contract
labor has been engaged through contractor can be said to be sham, nominal and camouflage.
46.
To test it further, apart from the statutory compliance which every principal establishment is
under an obligation to comply with, its noncompliance or breach may at best entail in penal
consequences which is always for the safety and security of the employee/workmen which has been hired
for discharge of the nature of job in a particular establishment. The exposition of law has been further
considered in International Airport Authority of India case (supra) where the contract was to supply of
labor and necessary labor was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision
and control of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner contract entered between the
contractor and contract labor to construe the be sham and bogus per se. Thus, in our considered view, if
the scheme of the CLRA Act and other legislative enactments which principal establishment has to
comply with under the mandate of law and taking note of the oral and documentary evidence which
came on record, the finding which has been recorded by the CGIT under its award dated 16th
September, 2009 in absence of the finding of fact recorded being perverse or being of no evidence and
even if there are two views which could possibly be arrived at, the view expressed by the Tribunal
ordinarily was not open to be interfered with by the High Court under its limited judicial review under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India scope of and this exposition has been settled by this Court in
its various judicial precedents the
48.
It is true that judgment in Dena Nath and Others (supra) is in reference to failure of
compliance of Section 7 and 12 and not in reference to Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act but if we look into
the scheme of CLRA Act which is a complete code in itself, noncompliance or violation or breach of the
provisions of the CLRA Act, it result into penal consequences as has been referred to in Sections 23 to
25 of the Act and there is no provision which would entail any other consequence other than provided
under Section 23 to 25 of the Act.
Learned Senior Counsel for Management has further referred to a decision of Supreme Court in SLP
No. 33798-33799 2014, BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Vs MAHENDRA PRASAD JAKHMOLA
& ORS.
The relevant portion of the judgment referred to by learned counsel is being reproduced as follows:-
“We, now come to some of the judgments cited by Shri Sudhir Chandra and Ms. Asha Jain. In ‘General
Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon v. Bharat Lala and Another’ [2011 (1) SCC
635], it was held that the well recognised tests to find out whether contract laborers are direct employees are
as follows:
“10. It is now well settled that if the industrial adjudicator finds that the contract between the principal
employer and the contractor to be a sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deny employment C.A. NOS.
1799-1800/ 2019 etc. (@SLP (C) Nos. 33747-33748/ 2014 etc.) benefits to the employee and that there was
in fact a direct employment, it can grant relief to the employee by holding that the workmen is the direct
employee of the principal employer. Two of the well-recognized tests to find out whether the contract
laborers are the direct employees of the principal employer are: (i) whether the principal employer pays the
salary instead of the contractor;
and (ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. In this case, the
Industrial Court answered both questions in the affirmative and as a consequence held that the first
respondent is a direct employee of the appellant” The expression ‘control and supervision’ were further
explained with reference to an earlier judgment of this Court as follows:
“12. The expression “control and supervision” in the context of contract labor was explained by this Court
in International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union thus: (SCC p.388,
paras 38-39) “38…. if the contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, the labor supplied by the contractor
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2471
will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make
the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to
regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the
contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labor, when such
labor is assigned/allotted/sent to him.
But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the
principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate
supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long
he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work
under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal
employer C.A. NOS. 1799-1800/ 2019 etc. (@SLP (C) Nos. 33747-33748/ 2014 etc.) but that is secondary
control. The primary control is with the contractor.” From this judgment, it is clear that test No. 1 is not
met on the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal
employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the
workmen of the contractor ‘what to do’ after the contractor assigns/ allots the employee to the principal
employer. This is precisely what paragraph 12 explains as being supervision and control of the principal
employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workmen has been
assigned to the principal employer to do a particular work.
We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in ‘Balwant Rai Saluja and Another v.
Air India Limited and Others’ [2014(9) SCC 407], as follows:
“65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an
employer-employee relationship
(i) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.
As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal
Nagpur Cotton Mills case [(2011) 1 SCC 635], International Airport Authority of India case [2009 13 SCC
374] and Nalco case [(2014) 6 SCC 756].” C.A. NOS. 1799-1800/ 2019 etc. (@SLP (C) Nos. 33747-33748/
2014 etc.) However, Ms. Jain has pointed out that contractors were frequently changed, as a result of
which, it can be inferred that the workmen are direct employees of BHEL.”
26.
Another case Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills 2011 Vol.1 SCC 635 (para-10, 14, 16, 8 and 12)
referred to by learned counsel is also the relevant paragraphs of which are being reproduced as follows:-
“The expression ‘control and supervision’ in the context of contract labor was explained by this court
in International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union [2009 (13) SCC
374] thus: “If the contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, the labor supplied by the contractor will
work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make
the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right
to regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the
contractor. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labor,
when such labor is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses
whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short,
worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the
contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what
conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer,
the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary
control. The primary control is with the contractor.”
The case of Himmat Singh vs ICI India (2008) 3 SCC Preferred to by learned counsel for Management
the referred paragraphs of the judgment are being reproduced as follows:-
“A few observations made by the High Court which are relevant need to be noted. It was held by the
High Court as follows: "The labor court has held that the petitioners were not working as helpers to
the fitters; they were not paid by the company; and were engaged on contract for intermittent work
2472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
i.e. they did not have regular or permanent work. The work that the petitioners do may be similar to
the work of the workmen of the company, but they are not doing the work that is ordinary part of the
industry. This is for reason that they- ? did not have permanent work; ? were engaged in intermittent
work and ? themselves claimed to be workmen of the contractor Rehman in proceedings under Rule
25 of the Labor Contract Act and got benefit under the same." 9. Similarly, the Labor Court noted
that contractor Rehman had applied to the administration for licence under the State Contract Labor
Act and considering the nature of the contract licence has been granted to him. 10. In Steel Authority
of India Ltd. v. Union of India &Ors. [2006(12) SC 233] it was inter-alia held as follows: "The
workmen whether before the Labor Court or in writ proceedings were represented by the same Union.
A trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act is entitled to espouse the cause of the workmen.
A definite stand was taken by the employees that they had been working under the contractors. It
would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
they were also the workmen of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is
impermissible in law. Such mutually destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 allowed to be raised even in an
industrial adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are applicable
in an industrial adjudication." 11. In view of the factual position highlighted above and the ratio of
the decision in Steel Authority’s case (supra), the inevitable result is that the appeal is sans merit,
deserves dismissal, which we direct with no order as to costs.
Airport Authority of India vs. IndianAirportKamgar 2011 Vol.1 L.L.J page-II Bombay para 32,33,37
referred to by learned counsel for the Management. Wherein, award allowing reference regarding same character of
engagement of contract labor was held now allowed in light of facts peculiar to the case referred.
Another case of Post Master General vs. Tutudas(2007)5 SCC 317.
Wherein, it has been held that illegal/improper grant of regularization to similarly situated
persons does not create and entitlement to regularization on the ground of equal treatment under article
14 of constitution as equality is a positive concept and cannot be invoked where any illegality has been
committed or where no legal right has been established.
In another case Dhampur Sugar Mills Vs Bhola Singh AIR 2005 SC page no 1790, referred to by
learned counsel for management it has been laid down that:
completion of 240 days in continuous service may not itself be ground for regularization of
service particularly in case when workmen had not been appointed in accordance with rules.
The case of Haldiya Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2005 CAB IC page 2078 SC also
referred to by learned counsel of which relevant paragraphs 15,16,17 & 20 specifically referred by the learned
counsel are being reproduced as follows:-
“No doubt, the respondent management does exercise effective control over the contractor on certain
matters in regard to the running of the canteen but such control is being exercised to ensure that the
canteen is run in an efficient manner and to provide wholesome and healthy food to the workmen of
the establishment. This however does not mean that the employees working in the canteen have
become the employees of the management. A free hand has been given to the contractor with regard
to the engagement of the employees working in the canteen. There is no clause in the agreement
stipulating that the canteen contractor unlike in the case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.
& Another (supra) shall retain and engage compulsorily the employees who were already working in
the canteen under the previous contractor. There is no stipulation of the contract that the employees
working in the canteen at the time of the commencement of the contract must be retained by the
contractor. The management unlike in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. case (supra) is not
reimbursing the wages of the workmen engaged in the canteen. Rather the contractor has been made
liable to pay provident fund contribution, leave salary, medical benefits to his employees and to
observe statutory working hours. The contractor has also been made responsible for the proper
maintenance of registers, records and accounts so far as compliance of any statutory
provisions/obligations are concerned. A duty has been cast on the contractor to keep proper records
pertaining to payment of wages etc. and also for depositing the provident fund contributions with
authorities concerned. Contractor has been made liable to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
employer from any liability or penalty which may be imposed by the Central, State or local authorities
by reason of any violation by the contractor of such laws, regulations and also from all claims, suits
or proceedings that may be brought against the management arising under or incidental to or by
reason of the work provided/assigned under the contract brought by employees of the contractor,
third party or by Central or State Government Authorities. The management has kept with it the right
to test, interview or otherwise assess or determine the quality of the employees/workers with regard to
their level of skills, knowledge, proficiency, capability etc. so as to ensure that the employees/workers
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2473
are competent and qualified and suitable for efficient performance of the work covered under the
contract. This control has been kept by the management to keep a check over the quality of service
provided to its employees. It has nothing to do with either the appointment or taking disciplinary
action or dismissal or removal from service of the workmen working in the canteen. Only because the
management exercises such control does not mean that the employees working in the canteen are the
employee of the management. Such supervisory control is being exercised by the management to
ensure that the workers employed are well qualified and capable of rendering the proper service to the
employees of the management.”
Following settled propositions of law emerges from the above referred decisions:-
A.
The point whether the contract is sham, bogus and camouflage will arise only when the work
contract which was allotted to the contractor was of non-prohibited category and also in cases
where though the work contract which was allotted to the contractor was of non-prohibited
category it become in prohibited category later on under the Notification issued by appropriate
Government under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.
B.
In reaching at a point whether the work contract was sham bogus and camouflage, the
relevant facts for consideration will be as to firstly, who was to exercise the
effective supervision and control, secondly, at whose site, the workmen were engaged, thirdly,
who paid the wages and fourthly, who provided instruments and training and other facts like this
is settled in the aforesaid judgments. It is also settled that what is the effective control and
supervision from industry to industry and control and supervision is not only criteria for reaching
at the conclusion whether the work contract was sham, bogus or camouflage also what effective
control and supervision is shall differ from industry to industry fact wise.
Learned counsel for the workmen further submits that this Tribunal is obligated to lift the veil and see the
facts taking into account the total circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion whether the contract is
sham, bogus and nongenuine. He further submits that may be apparently the work contract may appear legal but
this Tribunal will have to lift the veil in this case to do full justice between the parties. Learned counsel has referred
to para-18 and 21 of the case “General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar Vs. Oil and Natural
Gas Commission Contractual workers Union, (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 275”.
1.
The relevant portion of the judgement is quoted below: -
“Para-18: We, however, believe that this present case is not one of regularization simpliciter such as in the
case of an ad hoc or casual employee claiming this privilege. The basic issue in the present case is
the status of the workmen and whether they were the employees of ONGC or the contractor and in the
event that they were the employees of the former, a claim to be treated on a par with other such
employees. As would be clear from the discussion a little later, this was the basic issue on which the
parties went to trial, notwithstanding the confusion created by the ill-worded reference.
Para-21: Even ONGC had admitted that since 1988, there was no licensed contractor and that wages were
being paid through one of the leaders of Union, and one person who was named as contractor, was in
fact himself a workmen whose name appeared in acquaintance roll. Real issue therefore was
regarding status of workmen as employees of ONGC or of contractor, and it having found that
workmen were employees of ONGC, they would ipso facto be entitled to benefits available in that
capacity.Issue of regularization would therefore pale in insignificance. The Industrial Tribunal and
Division Bench of the High Court were justified in lifting the veil in order to determine nature of
employment.”
Learned Senior Counsel for Management has referred to Judgment of Supreme Court Oshiar Prasad &Ors.
Vs. Employees in relation to management Sudam-D coal washery of BCCI Dhanbad- 2015-ILLJ-
513SCpara-25 which is as follows-
It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under Section 10 of
the Act only when "Industrial dispute exists" or "is apprehended between the parties". Similarly, it is
also clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to the question(s)
referred and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of the reference while
answering the reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, which are not
specifically referred to the Tribunal while answering the reference.
The reference has been mentioned In this Judgment earlier, is regarding the action of the non-
regularization of the workmen, whether it is legal or justified and if it is not then what relief the workmen are
entitled to . Hence, the fact in issue is whether non-regularization of the workmen who performed various duties in
Incline is legal and justified or not and the relevant facts to decide the fact in issue will be whether Colliery get
2474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
settled in the light of the pleadings of the parties in respect of their rival claims. Hence, there is no question of
travelling beyond reference in this case but while in the process of reaching at the conclusion with regard to the
fact in issue, whether the so called agreements were sham or genuine or it is camouflage to deny the workmen
of their benefits under law is a relevant fact and to record finding in this respect naturally the veil has to be
lifted.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for workmen Union that the burden of proof lies on management
to prove that the concerned workers are contract labor and also the contract is genuine. Union placed reliance on the
judgment reported in the case of“Caparo Engineering India Limited Vs. Pradhanmantri Engineering Shramik
Sanghthan, 2019 (1)MPLJ 147.” The relevant portion is reproduced below: -
“(b) Evidence Act, S.102 – Burden of proof – Petitioner-company’s case that employees are contract
labor – therefore, Labor Court has rightly shifted burden on them to establish this – No error
committed by Labor Court while directing petitioner to lead evidence and prove that respondents are
contract laborers (para-31)”
The learned counsel for Union alternatively submits that even in the circumstances, the Union has not been
able to prove that they were working in prohibited category of work notified by the Government of India, even then
from the pleadings of the Union, the employer-employee relationship between the management and the workmen is
clearly established.
Now coming into the fact and evidence in the present case in the light of settled provisions as mentioned in
the case laws referred to from both the sides. The submission of workmen Union on this point is that in fact, the
workmen were engaged by the Management and wanted to deprive them of their legally admissible due to
management set up camouflage contractor and has given the color of work done under the contractor by a contract
labor. According to the workmen/Union, the management engaged a contractor for payment of less wage as a smoke
screen and a camouflage in the eyes of law. The purpose was to deny the rights and other rights to the
workmen. The learned Senior Counsel for management has submitted that the overall control and supervision was
that of the contractor. The management was only concerned with the work and had limited control and supervision
over the workmen. Also, it has been submitted that instrument and vocational training was provided in the light of
rules provided in this respect. Payment of wages were made by the contractor under supervision of management as
the rules provided for this, hence the fact that the agreement was a sham and a camouflage cannot be held proved,
as submitted by learned counsel for management.
From the evidence in the form of witness and documents, the management does not deny that the work of
the workmen was supervised by management. According to management, it was a limited supervision and control
and management also does not deny that work was given to the management by the workmen and also that the
instruments ie; light lamp and other instruments were supplied by the management. Management also does not deny
that payment of wages was made under their supervision but has put a caveat that payment was made by the
contractor under the supervision of management as it was provided in the work agreement & rules.
The allegation that the workmen were doing their duties under the strict supervision of management of
SECL, they were given vocational training and issued certificate for the job, tools for the job were also supplied by
the management, they worked under the supervision and control of the Management, is corroborated by the
workman witnesses and could not be discredited in their cross examination on this point. This fact, coupled with the
fact that they were engaged in the work in violation of CLRA Act because of their work being of prohibited nature,
clearly establishes that the contract and the contractor as well as theory of contract set up by management is simply a
false and fake. It is a sham and camouflage to deny the workmen of their legally admissible dues is held
proved from record.
In all the case laws referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, one thing is common is that the work
contracts were in non prohibited category when they were allotted to the Contractors. They came under prohibited
category only later on whereas in the case in hand on the basis of evidence on record it has been established that the
so called work contract between the employer and contractor was prohibited by law being in violation of
Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting work of that type being taken by contractors long
before the contractor was engaged to execute the work done by the principal employer. Hence the referred cases can
be easily distinguished from the case in hand on this point as mentioned earlier. It is not disputed between the
parties that vocational training was given by the Management to the workers, tools were provided by the
Management to the workers. Management exercised control and supervision on day to day working of the workmen
and wages were paid in person by the Management and its representatives. According to the Management counsel
all this was done as it was so provided in the work contract.
Reference of Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act requires to be taken here which define all the contract as it
is so because CLRA Act does not define contract. Section 2(d) reads as under:-
“Contract is an agreement enforceable by law.”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2475
According to Section 23 of Indian Contracts Act which deals with the as what consideration and object are
lawful and what not is being reproduced as follows:-
“what considerations and objects are lawful and what not-….
The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless-
It is forbidden by law, or
Is of such nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provision of any law or
is…………………..
………………………….”
Similary Section 24 of the said Act is also being reproduced as follows:-
“If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any or any part of several
considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.”
In the light of the above noted provisions of Indian Contract Act since the work agreement between the
Management and the contractor was against prohibitions of law as it defeats the provisions of NCWA and
Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act at the very moment it was entered into by them because these prohibitions
were enforced before the agreement was entered into by the parties will be void ab intio in law meaning
thereby there is no contract at all as per law between the parties. Thus it is not legally permissible on the part
of Management to contend that all the work of supervision, training and other actions detailed earlier were in the
light of terms of the work agreement because the said work agreement are void ab initio, as discussed above right
from the date of the agreements. The natural inference/consequences of this will be that it will be deemed that in
fact the control of supervision of workers by Management, training of worker’s management, providing tools and
instruments by Management etc. where done by the Magistrate on their own. It cannot be taken to be done if the
work contract is void ab initio, admitted is the fact between the parties is that the said workmen worked on the sight
which was owned by the Management i.e. is to say that the work place was the premises of Management i.e.
principal employer.
38.
Hence following facts are held proved in the light of above discussion which is as follows:-
(1) The work agreement was violative of legal provisions and prohibitions from the date and
moment the Management and contractor entered into the agreement.
(2) Since the object of the work agreement was not to defeat the provisions of law i.e. to say not
lawful hence all the three work agreements are void ab intio from their date of inception.
(3) As the work agreement are void ab initio , hence cannot be held that Management control and
supervision and other actions as discussed above, was done by Management in the light of the terms of
the work agreement i.e ,under a legally enforceable agreement.
39.
Accordingly, in the light of above provisions, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the work
agreement between the principal employer and allotted to contractor was sham, bogus and camouflage,
defeating the provisions of law, the sole aim of which was to deprive the workmen of their legally admissible
claims, stands proved.
Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
40. Issue No.3:-
In the light of the findings recorded earlier at Issue No.1 & 2 the workmen who were engaged via the sham
and bogus agreement as a camouflage shall be deemed to be under employment of the Principal employer which is
SECL and are held so.
42.
Perusal of the record reveals that there is a list of 112 workers Annexed to the reference who to the
workmen Union according workmen Union were engaged in the aforesaid activity. It came out that one of the
workmen Vijay at serial No.33 has filed application dated 6-11-2006 not to press the claim due to some clerical
mistake in the name of his father for which the Union is said to have taken the matter with the Labor Ministry for
correction. Hence the claim of this workman Vijay on this point is not considered.
The contractor staff in his statement on oath has not denied the claim of the workmen/Union that as many
as 132 workers were engaged by them for executing the work. Perusal of the record further reveals that this
contractor did not appear before the Court for his evidence. It also comes out that under order of the
workmen/Union filed a list, of 132 persons along with their parentage, identity, details of address and the witness
who is staff of the contractor as the workman side witnesses have proved the list.
2476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The workmen witnesses have stated on oath that 132 workmen as mentioned in the list annexed to the
reference were engaged in the work, they worked in three shifts but their statements cannot be taken as corroborated
with the work or of the work included in the list annexed to the reference were actually engaged.
The workmen/Union has also filed Vocational Training Certificates of 32 workers but no witness has been
examined from the side of Union to prove this list, hence this list also cannot be taken as correct of the case of
workmen on the point of identity of workmen.
Reference of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25(b)(2), Section 25(f) and Section 25(N) of
Industrial Dispute Act,1947 are being reproduced as follows:-
2[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workmen for any
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but
does not include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workmen; or (b) retirement of the workmen on
reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the
workmen concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workmen employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workmen has been given one month’s notice in writing
indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has
been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workmen has been paid,
at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2
[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority
as may be specified by the appropriate Government by Notification in the Official Gazette].
25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—
(1) No workmen employed in any industrial establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has
been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by
that employer until,—
(a) the workmen has been given three months’ notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such
notice, wages for the period of the notice; and
(b) the prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by
that Government by Notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the
specified authority) has been obtained on an application made in this behalf.
(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be made by the employer in the
prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended retrenchment and a copy of such
application shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen concerned in the prescribed
manner.
(3) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) has been made, the appropriate
Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks fit and after giving
a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen concerned and the persons
interested in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and adequacy of the
reasons stated by the employer, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant factors, by
order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and a
copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen.
(4) Where an application for permission has been made under sub-section (1) and the appropriate
Government or the specified authority does not communicate the order granting or refusing to
grant permission to the employer within a period of sixty days from the date on which such
application is made, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the
expiration of the said period of sixty days.
(5) An order of the appropriate Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to
grant permission shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), be final and binding on all the
parties concerned and shall remain in force for one year from the date of such order.
(6) The appropriate Government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on
the application made by the employer or any workmen, review its order granting or refusing to
grant permission under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be
referred, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2477
Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date
of such reference.
(7) Where no application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission
for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the
date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workmen and the workmen shall be
entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given
to him.
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate
Government may, if it is satisfied that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the
establishment or death of the employer or the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct, that
the provisions of sub- section (1) shall not apply in relation to such establishment for such period
as may be specified in the order.
(9) Where permission for retrenchment has been granted under sub-section (3) or where
permission for retrenchment is deemed to be granted under sub-section (4), every workmen who is
employed in that establishment immediately before the date of application for permission under
this section shall be entitled to receive, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months.
25F- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workmen employed in any industry
who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be
retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the workmen has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such
notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workmen has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as
may be specified by the appropriate Government by Notification in the Official Gazette.
Section 25.B.
Definition of continuous service:-
Where a workmen is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause(1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-
a.
For a period of one year, if the workmen, during a period of twelve calendar months
preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked
under the employer for not less than-
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workmen employed below ground in a mine;
and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b)
For a period of six months, if the workmen, during a period of six calendar months
preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked
under the employer for not less than-
(i)
ninety-five days , in the case of workman employed below ground in a mine and
(ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation-For that purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workmen has
actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-
(i) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act,1946(20 of 1946), or under the Act or under
any other law applicable to the Industrial establishment;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
2478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in
the course of his employment; and
(iv) In the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; soi however, that the total period of
such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
51.
Now further point arise whether it is proved from the evidence on record that the aforesaid workmen
worked for a period of 190 days as mentioned under Section 25 and Section 21(a) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 which applies to mines and is applicable in the case in hand or not ?
52.
The workmen witnesses have stated that they worked continuously and documents produced by
Management regarding contract and execution of work also states that they worked continuously for two years
preceding date of their disengagement. There is nothing on record to indicate otherwise and it is admitted by
Management and its witnesses that the work continued up to December 30, 1991 hence referred above, their case
that they worked for a period of 190/240 days in the year preceding their disengagement is held proved.
Since it is not the case of the Management that any notice or compensation was given to the workmen,
their disengagement is held against law and fact.
Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
53. Issue No.4
In the light of the findings recorded while discussing the Issue No.1,2 and 3, now the question arises as to
what relief the workers who have been held to be in employment of Management of SECL and their
disengagement is legally unjustified
54.
According to the learned Counsel for Management, their reinstatement and regularization will not be
justifiable keeping in view the facts that firstly most of the workmen would have crossed the age of superannuation
and secondly they cannot be regularized as they were not in service, when the reference was made to the
dispute. Learned Counsel for Management has again placed reliance on case of Oshiyar Prasad(Supra). In the said
case of Oshiyar Prasad, the workmen were held entitled to retrenchment compensation.
55.
The settled proposition of law is that when the disengagement of the workmen is found violative of Section
25(G) of Industrial Dispute Act,1947 or when it is found that a workman has been retrenched against law , he has to
be either reinstated with or without back wages or be given compensation in lump sum as his claim. In the case in
hand also the disengagement/retrenchment of the 42 workmen has been held legally unjustified, hence these
workmen have the right to be reinstated with or without back wages and service benefits life
absorption/regularization etc. or lump sum compensation in lieu of their rights to be paid to them . In the case in
hand the dispute first started in 1995 and has taken around 20 years to be decided.
Since, now many workmen would have crossed the age of superannuation, financial condition as well as
availability of the work with the employer company is also to be looked into. Hence keeping in view the facts of the
case in hand the ends of justice will be served if a lump sum compensation in lieu of wages after re-instatement,
right to regularization and other consequential service benefits be granted to them. In the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, lump sum compensation of Rs.2 lacs (Rs.2,00,000/-) to each of the 42 workman
will meet the ends of justice. Keeping in view the period litigation and its chequered history workman Union also
deserves to be paid the cost of litigation.
Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.
Accordingly the award is passed as follows:-
A.
The action of of SECL in disengaging the 132 workers and not regularizing them is held
unjustified in law and fact.
B.
The aforesaid workers are held entitled to get Rs. 2 lac (Rs. 2,00,000/-) per person as lump
sum compensation in adjustment of their rights, to be paid to them by management within
30 days from the date of publication of Award in Official Gazette, failing which interest @ of
8% per annum from the date of Award till payment.
C.
The cost of the litigation Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) will also be paid by Management
of SECL to the workmen/Union.
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labor& Employment as per
rules.
Date: 02/05/2024.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2479
नई दिल्ली, 10 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1133.—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
–
सह
–
]
िबलृुर
ds
iapkV
(एलसी/आर/40/2013,135/2012,3/2013,10/2013,49/2013,15/2013,95/2013,85/2013,84/2013,42/201
3,16/2013,6/2013,143/2012,8/2013,141/2012,45/2013,39/2013,97/2013,46/2013,4/2013,14/2013
,2/2013,9/2013,37/2013,140/2012,134/2013,11/2013,142/2013,5/2013,47/2013,83/2013,17/2013
,144/2013,7/2013,96/2013 and 86/2013)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012/254/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन. एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 10th June, 2024
S.O. 1133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (LC/R/40/2013,135/2012,3/ 2013,10/2013,49/2013,15/2013,95/
2013,85/2013,84/2013,42/2013,16/2013,6/2013,143/2012,8/2013,141/2012,45/2013,39/2013,97/2013,46/2013,4/20
13,14/2013,2/2013,9/2013,37/2013,140/2012,134/2013,11/2013,142/2013,5/2013,47/2013,83/2013,17/2013,144/20
13,7/2013,96/2013 and 86/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L. and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 06/06/2024.
[No. L-22012/254/2012– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
1. CGIT/LC/R/40/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
....LEADING CASE
WITH CONNECTED CASES
2. CGIT/LC/R/135/2012
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
2480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. CGIT/LC/R/3/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
4. CGIT/LC/R/10/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
5. CGIT/LC/R/49/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
6. CGIT/LC/R/15/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
7. CGIT/LC/R/95/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU) Branch-Baiga OCM
Qr. No. DB 37, Sanja nagar, PO-Sanjaynagar
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Sub Area Manager
Baiga OCM Burhar Gr. of SECL,
PO – Dhanpuri, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2481
8. CGIT/LC/R/85/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
9. CGIT/LC/R/84/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
10. CGIT/LC/R/42/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
11. CGIT/LC/R/16/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
12. CGIT/LC/R/6/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
2482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. CGIT/LC/R/143/2012
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
14. CGIT/LC/R/8/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
15. CGIT/LC/R/141/2012
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
16. CGIT/LC/R/45/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
17. CGIT/LC/R/39/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2483
18. CGIT/LC/R/97/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU) Branch-Baiga OCM
Qr. No. DB 37, Sanja nagar, PO-Sanjaynagar
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Sub Area Manager
Baiga OCM Burhar Gr. of SECL,
PO – Dhanpuri, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
19. CGIT/LC/R/46/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.-Shahdol (MP)
20. CGIT/LC/R/4/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
21. CGIT/LC/R/14/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
22. CGIT/LC/R/2/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
2484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
23. CGIT/LC/R/9/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
24. CGIT/LC/R/37/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area,
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
25. CGIT/LC/R/140/2012
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
26. CGIT/LC/R/134/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
27. CGIT/LC/R/11/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2485
28. CGIT/LC/R/142/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
29. CGIT/LC/R/5/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
30. CGIT/LC/R/47/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
31. CGIT/LC/R/83/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area
of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
32. CGIT/LC/R/17/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
2486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
33. CGIT/LC/R/144/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
Of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
34. CGIT/LC/R/7/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Chief General Manager, Sohagpur Area
SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Shahdol
35. CGIT/LC/R/96/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU), Branch- Baiga OCM,
Qr. No. DB 37, Sanja Nagar, PO- Sanjaynagar,
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The Sub Area Manager
Baiga OCM Burhar Gr. of SECL,
PO – Dhanpuri, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
36. CGIT/LC/R/86/2013
The Secretary
Koyla Shramik Sangh( CITU)
Branch- Dhanpuri-OCM, PO- Dhanpuri
Dist-Shahdol (MP)
Vs
The General Manager, Sohagpur Area
Of SECL, Po- Dhanpuri, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 30th day of April 2024)
After receiving the references, cases were registered and notices were sent to the parties. They appeared
and filed their respective statements of claim and defence in each case.
In the case R/40/2013 As per letter dated 13/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/254/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 13/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.-32 to Suresh Kumar Verma Dumper Operator of Dhanpuri OCM of SECL is
legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2487
In the case R/135/2012 As per letter dated 20/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/187/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 20/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to 15 senior mechanics (list enclosed) of the Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is
legal and justified ? To what relief the claimants are entitled for ?”
In the case R/3/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/212/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to Shri Amarnath Singh, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/10/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/219/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to Shri Sunil Singh, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/49/2013 As per letter dated 05/03/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/257/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 05/03/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to Shri Devender Pratap Singh, Dumper Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of
SECL, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/15/2013 As per letter dated 16/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/237/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 16/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to Shri S.P. Mishra, Dragline Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/95/2013 As per letter dated 12/11/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/147/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 12/11/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to Shri Vinor Kumar Soni, Shavel Operator, S/Sri Ram Raj Verma,
Ramashankar Tripathi, Drill Operators Baiga OCM of SECL, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/85/2013 As per letter dated 21/08/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/93/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 21/08/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No.- 32 to Shri D.P. Shukla, Foreman Incharge, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/84/2013 As per letter dated 21/08/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/95/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 21/08/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
implementation instructions No. 32 to Shri Umashanker Shrivastav & 08 Others (Operatons) (List attached),
Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/42/2013 As per letter dated 18/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/258/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 18/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
2488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Ram Siya Tripathi, Dumper Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is
legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/16/2013 As per letter dated 16/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/235/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 16/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Sudarshan Saket, Dragline Operator, Dumper Operator, Dhanpuri
OCM of SECL, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/6/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/215/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Vijay Sharma, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/143/2012 As per letter dated 30/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/192/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 30/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to 20 Foremans (Mech/Elect.) (List attached) of the Dhanpuri OCM of
SECL, is legal and justified ? To what relief the claimants are entitled for ?”
In the case R/8/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/217/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Ganesh Prasad, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/141/2012 As per letter dated 30/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/191/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 30/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to 44 E.P. Fitters (List enclosed) of the Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified ? To what relief the claimants are entitled for ?”
In the case R/45/2013 As per letter dated 11/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/249/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 11/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Brijraj Kishor Shukla, Grader Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is
legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/39/2013 As per letter dated 11/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/252/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 11/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Jaypal Singh, Dumper Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/97/2013 As per letter dated 12/11/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/145/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 12/11/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Triveni Prasad Beas, E.P. Fitter OCM of SECL, is legal and justified
? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2489
In the case R/46/2013 As per letter dated 11/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/250/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 11/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Girdhar Prasad Shrivastava, Dumper Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of
SECL, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ?”
In the case R/04/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/213/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Mahendra Pandey, Electioncian, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/14/2013 As per letter dated 16/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/236/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 16/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Mahesh Singh,Dragline Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/02/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/211/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Nagesh Pandey, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/09/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/218/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Ramnaresh Singh, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/37/2013 As per letter dated 11/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/239/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 11/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Rajesh Kumar, Dragline Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/140/2012 As per letter dated 30/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/189/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 30/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to 08 E.P. Welders (list enclosed)of the Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/134/2012 As per letter dated 20/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/186/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 20/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to 08 Dumper Operators & 7 Dozer Operators (list enclosed) of the Dhanpuri
OCM of SECL, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/11/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/220/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
2490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Julfikar Ali, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/142/2012 As per letter dated 30/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/190/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 30/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to 09 Auto Electrician Cum Fitters, 1 Machinist and 2 Drivers (list enclosed)
of the Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/05/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/214/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Jahid Khan, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/47/2013 As per letter dated 13/02/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/251/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 13/02/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Ramnarayan Prasad Namdev ,Operator, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is
legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/83/2013 As per letter dated 21/08/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/92/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 21/08/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi & Shri Mohan Singh Rathor,E.P.
Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/17/2013 As per letter dated 16/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/226/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 16/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Ramji Singh, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/144/2012 As per letter dated 30/11/2012 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 Notification No. L-22012/188/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 30/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to 07 E.P.G.H. (list enclosed) of the Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/07/2013 As per letter dated 01/01/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/16/2012 IR(CM-II) dt. 01/01/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Baijnath Prasad, Electrician, Dhanpuri OCM of SECL, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/96/2013 As per letter dated 12/11/2013 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
Notification No. L-22012/146/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 12/11/2013. The dispute under reference relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Suresh Singh, Electrician, Dozer Operator OCM of SECL, is legal
and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
In the case R/86/2013 As per letter dated 21/08/2013 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.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2491
Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/94/2013 IR(CM-II) dt. 21/08/2013. The dispute under reference
relates to :
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not granting the benefits of
Implementation Instructions No. 32 to Shri Deep Chand Singh & 11 Others (List attached), Shovel Operators,
Dozer Operator OCM of SECL, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”
The case of the workman side in all these cases is one and same. According to the workman side
Implementation Instruction no.-32 was issued by the Coal India after consultation and an agreement with all Central
Trade Unions/ Constituted Members of JBCCI and signatories of National Coal Wage Agreement-VI (In short
NCWA-VI). It was applicable to all the subsidiaries of Coal India including its subsidiary South Eastern Coal Fields
Limited (In short SECL). A Circular dated 27.07.2001 issued by the Director (Personnel) of Coal India stating that
ITI Certificate holders shall be placed in higher grade/ category after completing one year of apprenticeship in the
company. The pattern of wages/grade/scale was laid down by JBCCI in NCWA-VI at page no.-57. It is further the
case of workmen side these instructions in Implementation.Instructions.-32(in short II-32) were implemented in all
the subsidiaries of Coal India and benefits were granted to the ITI personnel except in some units of SECL. The
Sohagpur Area of SECL implemented it in some sub areas/units but not any Dhanpuri OCM. According to the
workmen side Circular no.- 990 dated 31.12.2002 was issued by Director (Personnel) SECL denying benefits of I.I.-
32 to its workmen and deprived the applicant workmen of promotion and placement in higher grade/ category as per
I.I.-32 dated 22.01.2002 which is in violation of NCWA-VI. As stated by the workmen union, this Circular no.- 990
dated 31.12.2002 was against the provisions of NCWA-VI which was accepted by the Coal India and was
implemented in all of the subsidiaries of Coal India including SECL. It was beyond the competence of Director
(Personnel) SECL to change the terms of NCWA-VI by way of an executive order vide Circular no.- 990 dated
31.12.2002 when he was not delegated any such power by Coal India. This Circular is arbitrary and is violative of
Article 14 of Constitution of India, hence has no force of law. Any action denying benefits to the workman
admissible to them in NCWA-VI and I.I.-32 under this Circular is against law. The workmen union has accordingly
prayed the following –
1) Direct the management of SECL to implement I.I.-32 issued under NCWA-VI with respect to the
workmen dumper operators who are ITI personnel hiring undergone one year apprenticeship in SECL
and be placed in higher grade/category with all benefits retrospectively.
2) Direct the management to pay all consequential attendant benefits thereof forthwith.
3) Direct the management to restore the benefits enjoyed by the workmen but withdrawn by management
under Order No.- 350 dated 04.02.2003/16.03.2003 retrospectively with all consequential/resultant
benefits.
Case of management, in these cases is mainly that firstly, the Union Koyla Shramik Sabha has no locus
standi to raise the dispute. Secondly, according to the management, the claim of the workmen union is based on
wrong interpretation of I.I.-32. Management admits that I.I.-32 as well NCWA-VI is applicable on all the
subsidiaries of Coal India including the management of SECL. Management has further stated that the impugned
Circular dated 31.12.2002 was issued with regard to implementation of I.I.-32 and was given wide publicity. None
of the unions raised any objection on this Circular except the applicant union. According to the management I.I.-32
was meant only for E&M Cadre and Excavation Cadre ITI holders who were working as General Mazdoor
Category-I and Helper Category-II. It is also the case of management that all ITI holders who have joined and
working in different other cadres i.e. Dumper Operator/Dozer Operator, Clerical, Driver, HEMM Operator and
others engaged in other jobs in other cadre schemes on their selection/posting from E&M Cadre and Excavation
Cadre were not entitled to be placed in higher category, hence operator like Driver/Dumper Operator/SDL Operator
will not get this benefit. Also, it has been stated that this was one time arrangement under I.I.-32 when the Circular
of Coal India dated 22.01.2002 was issued and those who were not eligible at that time could not get benefit. Hence,
according to the management, it was justified in withdrawing the benefits wrongly granted. The management has
accordingly prayed that the reference be answered against the workmen.
No rejoinder has been filed by workmen union.
In evidence, workmen side have examined themselves and have been cross examined. Workmen side has
filed and proved documents Ex. W/1 to W/38, which are different Circulars and RTI queries, to be referred to as and
when required. Management has examined its witness who has been cross examined. Management has filed Ex. M/1
to M/5, to be referred to as and when required.
I have heard argument of Mr. Subodh Agrawal, learned Counsel for workmen side and Mr. Anoop Nair,
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kewat for management. Workmen side has filed written arguments also
which is part of record, management has not filed any written argument. I have gone through the record and the
written arguments.
2492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues come up for determination in the case
in hand:-
1- Whether the Director (Personnel) SECL had lawful authority and was it within his competence
to issue the Circular no.- 990 dated 30/31.12.2002 superseding Circular Dt 21-02-2002, issued
by Director (Personnel) Coal India under I.I.-32?
2- Will the Circular No.- 990 dated 30/31.12.2002 issued by the Director (Personnel) SECL
override the Circular dated 22.01.2002 issued under I.I.-32 by Coal India ?
3- Whether the Circular no.- 990 dated 30/31.12.2002 issued by Director (Personnel) SECL is
arbitrary & violative of Article 14 of Constitution ?
4- Whether the action of management of Sohagpur Area of SECL in not granting benefits of I.I.-
32 to the workmen who happen to be the Dumper Operators of Dhanpuri OCM under the cover
of Circular no.- 990 dated 30/31.12.2002 ?
5- Relief if any, the workmen are entitled to ?
Issue No.-1 & 2 :-
Since Issue no.-1 & 2 are related to each other, they are being taken together. The Circular issued by Coal
India on 22.01.2002 under I.I.-32 (the relevant portion) is being reproduced as follows :-
“1.(a). ITI Certificate holders with one year course plus one year training at the time of induction will be
placed in category-II and they will be under training for one year in the company.
(b). After completion of one year training such trainees in category-II will be regularize in category-III.
(c). The ITI Certificate holders with two years course plus one year training at the time of induction will be
placed in category-III and they will be under training for one year in the company.
(d). The trainees in category-III will be regularized in category-IV after completion of one year training
in E&M Cadre. The trainees working in Excavation will be regularized in Excavation D. (emphasis
supplied)
2. Existing ITI Personnel who have completed 3 years in existing grade as on 31.12.1999 will be notionally
placed in next higher category/grade w.e.f. 01.01.2000 but financial benefit will accrue w.e.f. 01.01.2001
and this will be personal to them as gone time arrangement.
3………………………………
4………………………………
The Circular no.- 990 issued by Director (Personnel) SECL which is under attack, the relevant portion is
being reproduced as follows:-
(1 to 4).....................
(5). Operator like Dumper Operator/Driver/SDL Operator etc. will not get this benefit.
It is not disputed that Coal India is the parent organization and companies like SECL and other Coal
Companies are its subsidiaries. Hence, bound by the instructions issued by the parent organization Coal India. The
Circular dated 22.01.2002 issued under I.I.-32 by Coal India applies to all of its subsidiaries including SECL.
Management could not produce any Rule or Provision authorizing any of subsidiaries of Coal India to issue
instructions/Circulars overriding the instructions/Circulars issued by Coal India. It is evident from perusal of these
Circulars that the Circular no.- 990, issued by the Director (Personnel)SECL, which is under attack, is not in
conformity the Circular dated 22.01.2002, issued by Coal India to the extent it denies benefit of the Circular dated
22.01.2002 issued by Coal India to operators like Dumper Operator/Driver/SDL Operator etc. Hence, issued by the
Director (Personnel) SECL was not competent to issue the impugned Notification/ Circular No.- 990,
overriding fully or partially the Circular dated 22.01.2002 issued by Coal India and the Circular No.- 990
dated 30/31.12.2002 issued by the Director (Personnel) SECL override the Circular dated 22.01.2002 issued
under I.I.-32 by Coal India
Issue No.-1 & 2 are answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3:-
The Circular dated 22.01.2002 issued by Coal India in para 1.(d). states that after completion of one year
training, the trainees in Category-III will be regularized in Category-IV. The trainees in Excavation will be
regularized in Excv. D (Excavation Department) the impugned Circular no.- 990 issued by Director (Personnel)
SECL states that operators like Dumper Operator/Driver/SDL Operator etc. will not get benefit. These operators are
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2493
of Excavation Cadre and this fact is not disputed. When the parent Circular does not discriminate between ITI
Certificate holders in two cadres, i.e. E&M and Excavation such discrimination at subsidiary level is nothing but
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution because it has no basis particularly when from the RTI papers
filed by workmen side Ex. W/17 to Ex. W/38 show that the Circular of Coal India has been uniformly and fully
implemented in all cadres including Excavation Cadre in all other subsidiaries of Coal India like NCL, WCL, CCL
etc.
Issue No.-3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-4 :-
On the basis of findings recorded above, the action of management of Sohagpur Area of SECL in not
granting benefits of I.I.-32 to the workmen who happen to be the Dumper Operators of Dhanpuri OCM under the
cover of Circular no.- 990 dated 30/31.12.2002 is held arbitrary and illegal.
Issue no.-4 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-5 :-
In the light of above findings, this issue is answered against the Management.
In the light of above discussion and findings, following Award is passed -
AWARD
The action of General Manager Sohagpur area in not granting the benefits of Implementation
Instructions 32 to the workmen in the aforesaid references is illegal and unjustified. They are held entitled to
the benefits according to I.I.-32 admissible to them at par with their counter parts working in E & M Cadre.
The management is directed to complete the whole exercise pay the arrears if any within 30 days from the
date of publication of Award in Official Gazette, failing which interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of
Award till payment. No order as to cost.
DATE: 30/04/2024
P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1134.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV Award ( Complaint Case No 02 C of 2018 (Ref. Case No.
04 (C ) of 2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-161]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Complaint Case No. 02 C of 2018 (Ref. Case No. 04 (C ) of 2017) of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-161]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
Complaint Case No.- 02(C) of 2018
Reference Case No.:- 04 (C) of 2017
The workman of Sri Jawahar Kumar, S/O- Sri Bhubaneshwar Prasad, Vill.-Harprasad Bigha, P.O- Gaurav
Nagar, P.S- Parwalpur, Dist.-Nalanda ( Complainant ) Versus Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, the Regional Manager,
State Bank of India, Regional Office, Hariji Ka Hata, Arrah-802301 Dist.- Bhojpur (Opposite party)
2494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the management:-
Sri Rashmi Rathi Sharma, Manager, Law, SBI.
Smt. Bhargavi Jha, Manager.
Smt. Richa Priyambada, Law Officer.
For the workman:-
Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
ORDER
Patna, dt- 5th April,2024.
1. This complaint case is filed by the workman Jawahar Kumar against the management bank u/s-33 (A) of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 arising out of Reference Case No.- 04(C) of 2017.
2. The case of the workman vide this complaint petition is thatworkman Jawahar Kumar was a temporary
messenger at Buxar Branch of SBI previously called State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. The workman was working
from at Buxar Branch from 16.08.2013. It is further alleged that complainant ( workman ) had caused an Industrial
Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner on 29.03.2016 which culminated in reference before this
Industrial Tribunal, Patna i.e registered as Reference Case No.- 04 (C) of 2017. It is further alleged that after
receiving the notice from the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) as well as Industrial Tribunal the opposite party
instructed the then Branch Manager of Buxar Branch to terminate the services of the complainant / workman from
08.12.2017. It is further alleged that as per the instruction of the opposite party the complainant ( workman Jawahar
Kumar ) was terminated from the service of the bank i.e violation of section-33 of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted
that complainant represented the opposite party on 27.12.2017 for reinstatement in service but no positive action
was taken by the opposite party. It is further asserted that opposite party is liable to be prosecuted and punishment as
per section 31 of the I.D.Act for the violation of section-33. Thus the complainant seeks prayer to decide his
complaint and passed the order as deem fit and proper. The complainant also petition enclosed with the copy of the
notification of the Reference Case No.- 04(C) of 2017, copy of the notice dt- 08.11.2017 issued by this tribunal to
the both parties and copy of the representation petition dt- 27.12.2017 sent to the Regional Manager, SBI.
3. On the other hand the opposite party / management bank filed reply to the complaint petition and mentioned
therein the present complaint filed by the complainant u/s-33 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is only to create a
pressure upon the opposite party / management bank for illegal gain, hence the same is fit to be dismissed. It is
further asserted that complainant had raise the Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner on
29.03.2016 and after failure of the conciliation the Central Government referred this dispute to this tribunal vide
Order No.- L-12012/110/2016-IR (B-I) dt- 26.10.2017 and in that reference case the opposite party / management
bank appeared after receiving the notice and filed reply / written statement accordingly. The allegation of the
complainant is far away from the truth. The fact is complainant was neither an employee of the bank nor appointed
by the bank in any manner so therefore, no question of termination of the service arises at all. It is further asserted
that complainant never worked as a temporary messenger at Buxar Branch from 16.08.2013 rather complainant was
engaged intermittently without any continuity of service depending on requirement by the bank, some time for part
of the day and some time for full day. It is further asserted that the claim of the complainant as per instruction of the
Regional Office the Branch Manager of the Buxar Branch terminated the service of the complainant from
08.12.2017 is totally wrong because complainant was engaged orally on requirement basis and job of the
complainant was casual in nature.So the termination of services from 08.12.2017 does not arises. It is further
asserted that complainant has not made out any prime-facie case of violation of any provision of law and bank has
also not violated any provision of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that complainant Jawahar Kumar was never
appointed in any manner in the bank as he was engaged orally on requirement basis by the branch and worked
occasionally in the job of the casual nature and other work from time to time in the said branch and he was paid
accordingly. So the conditions of termination of service are no way applicable to him to attract the provisions of
section-31 and section-33 of the I.D.Act.So it is prayed to dismiss the complaint petition.
4. In the light of his complaint petition the workman Jawahar Kumar produced himself as a witness and he deposed
before this tribunal on 27.06.2022. He stated before this tribunal, he was retrenched from discharging the duty at
Buxar Branch of management bank from 08.12.2017 at that time his reference case no.-04(C) of 2017 is pending in
this tribunal. This witness also stated that bank management neither gave any notice, nor any notice pay and not
even any compensation to him before termination.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-6 is that he has filed this complaint case
against the then Branch Manager of Buxar Branch. This witness also admits no appointment letter was given to him
and no letter was given before this termination. This witness also admits in the same para that he has filed all the
relevant documents in the Reference Case No.- 04(C) of 2017. In para-8 of the cross-examination this witness
categorically stated that one Santosh Kumar Jha the Officer of Regional Office took him to the Buxar Branch for the
work were he never made his attendance and bank had not given him Identity Card. This tribunal finds that the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2495
management bank did not controvert the evidence of complainant Jawahar Kumar as stated in examination-in-chief
regarding his termination of service from 08.12.2017 while the Reference Case No.-04(C) of 2017 was pending in
this tribunal and also did not denied about any kind of notice or notice pay rather management has cross-examined
the witness otherwise i.e not concerned this complaint case.
5. The workman / complainant also marked his representation petition of dt- 27.12.2017 for the reinstatement of his
service in the bank marked as Ext.-1 with due admission of the management bank. This letter is addressed to the
Regional Manager, SBI Arrah by workman Jawahar Kumar disclosing this facts he was working as a temporary
messenger at the Buxar Branch from 16.08.2013 and before that he work at Regional Office, Patna of SBBJ and he
worked at Buxar upto 08.12.2017 but he has been stopped from working. This Ext.1 is duly admitted by the
management bank.
6. On the other hand,management also examined one witness Akhil Kumar Mishra the DGM of SBI Any Time
Chaineal Corporate Centra, Mumbai who stated before this tribunal that he was Regional Manager at Regional
Office of SBBJ, Arrah from September 2017 to May-2019 and there were 50 branches attached to the Regional
Office. This witness also stated that a instruction was given to all the branches to take the cleaning work for
approved agency only. This witness also stated that during his tenure at Regional Office, Arrah no branch has given
any information about any temporary sweeper or messenger. This witness further stated that this is totally false to
say instruction was passed to the Buxar Branch to terminate the Jawahar Kumar from 08.12.2017.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-9 is that as per the complaint the matter
related to regularisation. As per complaint the issue of Jawahar Kumar was related to SBBJ but he does not know
whether he was discharging work there. In para-11 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admits that
Mr. S.K. Prasad was the Branch Manager of Buxar Branch of SBBJ in the year-2017 and in para-12 this witness
categorically stated that he can’t say Jawahar Kumar was engaged in SBBJ Buxar Branch from the year-2013. In
para-13 of the cross-examination this witness stated that as for his memory Buxar Branch of SBBJ was taking the
work from out sourcing and he also denied in para-14 that the workman has given any representation to Regional
Manager in the year 2017 and it is also not fact he has given any instruction for the Jawahar Kumar. The evidence of
this witness shows that he was posted at Regional Office from September 2017 to May 2019 and this witness also
stated that he can’t say about Jawahar Kumar working at SBBJ Buxar Branch from 2013. This witness also admits
that the case of the complainant is about regularisation. Moreover, this witness also stated that he does not know the
complainant Jawahar Kumar. So the evidence of the management does not de-establish the claim of the complainant
regarding his termination from work at Buxar Branch from 08.12.2017. No authentic evidence is brought by the
management bank so far as the complainant is concerned.
7. Considering all the facts and materials on the record as discussed above, this tribunal finds that Reference Case
No.-04(C) of 2017 was pending in this tribunal from 07.11.2017 and the notice was issued to both the parties on
08.11.2017. The claim of the complainant ( workman ) in Reference Case No.- 04(C) of 2017 was for his
regularisation his service in the management bank has he was discharging the duties of a temporary worker
messenger and the cleaning work from August 2013 at Buxar Branch continuously and when the notice was
received of this reference case, the management bank terminated the services of working from 08.12.2017 and that’s
why this complaint case is filed by the workman u/s-33(A) of the I.D.Acti.eSection-33(A) deals [ Condition of
service, etc to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.—(1) During
the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding
before 66[ an arbitrator or ] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial
dispute, noemployer shall—
(a)
In regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter to the prejudice of the workmen
concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the
commencement of such proceeding; or
(b)
for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or
otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute,
save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is
pending.
Taking the crux of this provision of 33 (A) of the I.D.Act the dispute of the workman was pending in this
tribunal to adjudicate about not to regularise the service of workman by management bank as peon / messenger is
justified, and in the mean time workman was stopped from discharging duties at Buxar Branch from 08.12.2017
without seeking any permission by the management bank from this tribunal certainly a violation of section 33 (A) of
the I.D.Acti.e thoroughly established by the complainant (workman ) by way of oral and documentary evidence
(Ext.-1 ). Moreover, management bank has been totally failed to controvert the claim of the workman regarding his
termination from his job from 08.12.2017 without any notice or notice pay.
2496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. On the ultimate analysis all the facts and the materials available on the record as discussed above and submissions
as advanced by both the sides, this tribunal finds and hold that Jawahar Kumar has raised the dispute for not
toregularise his service by the management bank, accordingly Reference is sent by the appropriate Govt. to this
tribunal with reference order no.- L-12012/110/2016-IR(B-I) New Delhi, dated- 26.10.2017 i.e“ Whether the
action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in not regularizing the services of Sri Jawahar
Kumar Peon / Messenger, Buxar Branch is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled
to?” This tribunal further finds and hold that the case is pending in this tribunal to adjudicate the above issue in the
mean time workman / complainant was stopped from doing duty in the Buxar Branch of SBI from 08.12.2017 i.e
thoroughly established by the complainant before this tribunal, accordingly this is the considered opinion of the
tribunal the complaint as filed by the workman Jawahar Kumar U/S-33(A) of the I.D.Act is correct. This order is the
part of the award passed in Reference Case No.- 04(C) of 2017.This order is effected after date of publication in
gazette.
This is my order accordingly.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1135.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
;qdks cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV ( 25/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 12011/33/2011- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.25/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/33/2011- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/25/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
General Secretary
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan
F-1, Karmabhoomi, Tripti Vihar, Opposite
Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
Asst. General Manager
UCO Bank, Head Office, 10
Old Court Street, Kolkata
Management
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2497
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 1st day of April 2024)
Vide letter no.-L-12011/33/2011/IR(B-II), dated 18.01.2012, the Government of India, through
Ministry of Labour and Employment, has sent following reference for adjudication.
SCHEDULE
“Whether Shri Ram Singh Ahirwar is workman under the Provision of I.D. Act 1947 ? If yes, whether
Ram Singh Ahirwar is eligible for payment of bonus for the period from 09.11.1988 to 21.08.1996 ? What relief
the workman is entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and
file their respective Statements of Claim and Defense.
According to the Union, the workman Ram Singh Ahirwar was first employed by management of UCO
Bank, Regional Office, Bhopal on 09.11.1988 and worked till 28.02.1990 on daily wage @ of Rs. 20/- per day
which was increased to Rs. 25/- per day. He further worked in Habibganj Branch of the Bank in Bhopal from
01.03.1990 on daily wage @ of Rs. 35/- per day which was increased to Rs. 40/- and Rs. 45/- per day. He also
worked in the Arera Colony, Branch of the Bank in Bhopal from 22.08.1996 to 09.05.1997 on a daily wage @ of Rs.
55/- per day. Bank paid him bonus for the period of 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997 and 01.04.1997 to 09.05.1997 but did
not pay bonus for the period of 09.11.1988 to 28.02.1990 and for 01.03.1990 to 21.08.1996, though other daily
wagers like Harinarayan in Vichchod Branch and Dilip Kumar in Bhinoda Branch both in Distt.- Ujjain were paid
bonus for this period also. This action of the management bank in denying bonus to the workman is against law.
Accordingly the workman has prayed that holding him entitled to get bonus for the period from 09.11.1988 to
28.02.1990 and from 01.03.1990 to 21.08.1996, management be directed to pay him bonus accordingly.
According to management, the workman was a daily wage labour, engaged by the Bank on daily rate basis
to meet the exigencies of work from time to time. He was never engaged against any vacancy or a sanctioned post
following recruitment procedure, hence he is not a workman U/s. 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter
referred to by the word ‘Act’, hence not eligible for bonus for the period claimed by him. Management further stated
that the workman never worked continuously for 240 days in any year. Management has also disputed the right of
the Union to contest this case.
In evidence, workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by
management the workman has further filed and proved photocopy documents Ex. W/1 to Ex. W/9, to be referred to
as and when required.
Management has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. No oral arguments submitted by any of
the parties, workman side has filed memorandum of arguments which is on record. Management has not filed any
written arguments.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the reference itself is the issue for determination.
Pleadings of the parties have already been detailed earlier. Before proceedings into the merits of claim and
counter claim, Section 2(j) & 2(s) of the Act are being reproduced as follows –
2(j)
“industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and
includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;
2(s)
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but does not include any such person—
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the
powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
Section 8 of Payment of Bonus Act is also being reproduced as follows –
2498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Eligibility for bonus.—Every employee shall be entitled to be paid by his employer in an accounting
year, bonus, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, provided he has worked in the establishment for not
less than thirty working days in that year.”
In his statement on oath, the workman has corroborated his case that he worked as a daily wager with the
Bank in its different branches from 09.11.1988 to 21.08.1996 and also from 01.04.1996 to 09.05.1997. He further
states that he was paid bonus by the bank for the period from 01.04.1996 to 09.05.1997. Case of management, has
taken by them in their written statement is that since he was a daily wager, he was not a workman and hence not
entitled to bonus. Management has nowhere denied the case of the workman, in their pleadings or evidence (no
evidence by management) nor they have stated that the workman was not paid any bonus for any period as claimed
by him. Hence, the stand of management that the workman, being a daily wager, was not entitled to bonus falls flat.
Now, the question remains to decided as to whether the workman has successfully proved his engagement as daily
wager from 09.11.1988 to 21.08.1996 in different branches of the Bank as stated by him. His statement on oath
corroborates his this case and there is nothing in his cross examination to discredit him on this point. Since, his this
allegation has not been specifically denied by management in their pleadings, it shall be deemed to be admitted by
management. More ever, management has not rebutted this claim of the workman by any evidence.
Hence, holding the claim of the workman that he worked as daily wager with the Bank in its different
branches within the period from 09.11.1988 to 21.08.1996 proved, he is held entitled to bonus for this period based
on number of days he worked with the Bank during this period.
In the light of the above discussion, following award is passed.
AWARD
Holding the claim of the workman that he worked as daily wager with the Bank in its different
branches within the period from 09.11.1988 to 21.08.1996 proved, he is held entitled to bonus for this period
based on number of days he worked with the Bank during this period. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 01/04/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1136.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e, 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (10/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011/26/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.10/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/26/2018- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan, F-1,
Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.) - 456010
Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2499
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Hosangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 462004
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 07th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 18/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12011/26/2018 (IR(B-I)) dt. 18/12/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether the following allegations made by the union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangathan,
against the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal, in the matter of Shri Pradeep Dhangar, are amount
to unfair labour practice under I.D Act. ?
a.) Not giving appointment letter and not giving termination lettet.
b.) Payment was not made as per pay scale/skill wage.
c.) Minimum Wages not paid.
d.) Muster Roll has not been maintained as per Section 25-D of ID Act
e.) After working for 06 days, the Wages for weekly off and National Holidays 26th January, 15th
Aug were deducted.
If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to? ”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the Workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and
service of notice, the Workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file
its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the Workman. Since the Workman did not file any pleading nor
did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of 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: 07/05/2024
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1137.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मध्यांचल ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (05/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-162]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.05/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
2500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Madhyanchal Gramin
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024- IR (B-I)-162]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/A/05/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Ram Milan Kushwaha
S/o. Shri Lolar Prasad Kushwaha
R/o. Village and Post Karthua, Tehsil Chitrangi,
District Singrauli M.P.
Workman
Versus
Madhyanchal Gramin Bank
Through its Chairman, Head Office Poddar
Colony, In front of Mahila Polytechnic College
Hostal, Sagar (M.P.)
General Manager
Madhyanchal Gramin Bank
Regional Office In front of Mahila Polytechnic
College Hostal, Sagar (M.P.)
Regional Manager
Food Corporation of India,
Madhyanchal Gramin Bank, Regional Office,
Collectorate Road ,Munni Bai Colony,
Sidhi (M.P.)
Branch Manager
Madhyanchal Gramin Bank
Branch Kartrhua, Distt.- Singrauli (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGEMENT)
(Passed on this 30th day of April 2024)
The workman has filed this petition U/S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
seeking declaration of oral termination of his services on 02.08.2022 as illegal and in violation of Section 33-A of
the Act.
The case of the applicant workman, in brief is that he was working as a daily wager in the management
bank since 22.08.1997. His services were illegally terminated by bank w.e.f. 22.08.2000. He raised an Industrial
Dispute in this respect a reference was received to this Tribunal which was registered as R/23/2003 and final Award
was passed on 11.10.2012. The illegal termination was set aside by the Tribunal and applicant was directed to be
reinstated with all back wages and benefits. Management preferred W.P. No.- 3255/2013 before Hon’ble High Court
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2501
of M.P. The back wages was stayed by Hon’ble High Court Single Bench subject to the condition of reinstatement
of the applicant by bank. His services were reinstated in compliance of the direction of Hon’ble High Court in the
aforesaid writ but were illegally discontinued during the pendency of the writ proceedings which is violation of
Section 33-A of the Act.
Management has opposed this application stating that writ is not continuation of proceeding, hence claim is
not covered U/S. 33-A of the Act.
After hearing, the case was fixed for final order. Before final order, learned Counsel for applicant workman
filed an application with affidavit of the applicant stating that since he has now been engaged by the bank, the
dispute as ceased to exist at present and has sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty that if the cause
of action survives he may again file petition.
After hearing of applicant learned Counsel and perusal of record, it comes out that the application may be
allowed and prayer may be granted. Accordingly, application for withdrawal is allowed as prayed. No order as to
cost.
DATE:- 30/04/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1138.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (04/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12011/17/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11 June, 2024
S.O. 1138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.04/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/17/2018- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/04/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S. ( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1,Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.) - 456010
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Hosangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 462004
Management
2502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Passed on this 29nd day of April-2024.)
As per letter dated 18/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12011/17/2018 (IR(B-I)) dt. 18/12/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-
“ Whether the following allegations made by the union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari
Sangathan, against the management of State Bank of India, Bhopal, in the matter of Shri Devendra Goud, are
amounts to unfair labour practice under I.D Act?
a. Not giving appointment letter and not giving termination letter.
b. Payment was not made as per pay scale/skill wage.
c.
Minimum Wages not paid.
d. Muster Roll has not been maintained as per Section 25-D of ID Act.
e.
Applicants have worked 240 days in a year.
f.
After working for 06 days, the Wages for weekly off and National Holiday 26th January, 15th Aug
were deducted.
If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and
service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file
its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor
did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of 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: 29/04/2024
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1139.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (31/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 12012/103/2013- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/103/2013- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2503
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/2014
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ravi Kumar Rajput
S/o. Chandu Singh Rajput
H.No. 995, Imalipura, Near Gurudwara
Gorakhpur, Jabalpur (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India, L.H.O. Hoshangabad
Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India, Rampur Branch
District Jabalpur (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 21st day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 22/04/2014 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-
12012/103/2013 IR(B-II) dt. 22/04/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-
^^Whether the action of the management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rampur Branch,
Jabalpur/Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal (M.P.) in discontinuing the
services of Shri Ravi Kumar Rajput S/o. Shri Chandu Singh Rajput, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 31.08.2010 and not
absorbing him into State Bank of India from State Bank of Indore pursuant to merger of State Bank of
Indore into State Bank of India is just valid and reasonable ? If not, what relief the workman is 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.
According to the workman, he was appointed by the management on 28.03.2004 as a peon and worked
continuously till 31.08.2010 when his services were terminated without any notice or compensation. During his
service tenure he was required to discharge all the duties of the peon and also other manual works performed by a
Class-IV Employee. The work was of a permanent nature though he was appointed on daily wage basis. He raised a
dispute against his illegal termination which was in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act. After failure of
conciliation, the reference was sent to this Tribunal. The workman has thus prayed that he be held entitled to be
reinstated with all back wages and benefits setting aside his disengagement.
In its written statement of defense, the bank has denied the engagement of workman in any capacity and
had pleaded that there are certain recruitment procedure for recruitment of employees including peons. According to
the management the workman was never appointed against any regular post following recruitment procedure. In fact
he was purely engaged as a casual labour subject to availability of work. He never worked continuously for 240 days
in an year, hence his disengagement is not in violation of the Act. Accordingly, the bank has requested that the
reference be answered against the workman.
The workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief on which he has been cross examined by
management. He has filed and proved photocopy documents which are Ex. W/1 & W/2 list of daily wage payment
to the workman from 31.08.2009 to 28.08.2010, Ex. W/3 details of bonus payment from 04.01.2005 to 28.08.2010.
Management has also filed affidavit of its witness who has been cross examined from the side of workman.
2504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I have heard argument of Mr. K.B. Singh learned Counsel for workman and Mr. Praveen Yadav learned
Counsel for Management Bank. I have gone through the record as well.
From perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination.
1. Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement by bank for 240 days and
more within an year ?
2. Whether, the disengagement of the workman is in violation of Section 25-G, 25-F and 25-N of the
Act ?
3. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?
Issue No.-1 & 2 :-
Since, both the issues are inter connected, they are being taken together. Pleadings of the parties on these
issues have been detailed earlier. The workman has corroborated his case on these issues in his affidavit as his
examination in chief. In his cross examination, he has stated that he was not issued an appointment letter. He further
states that he did not appear in any written examination and interview for the post, no advertisement was released,
his name was not sponsored by employment exchange and that was engaged by the Branch Manager. The document
regarding payment of bonus to the workman for the period 2005 to 2010 Ex. W/3 goes to show that he was paid
bonus for more than 240 days work in every year. This is further supported by Ex. W/1 & W/2 which is statement
regarding days the workman worked in the year preceding the date of his termination which shows that he worked
for more than 240 days.
On the other hand, the management witness has stated in his cross examination that the workman was a
daily wager casual staff. This witness does not know whether approval for the termination of the workman was
taken or any notice or compensation was given to him on his termination. This witness has referred to the merger
document Clause-7 & 8 which provides that only the services of permanent employees and employees on probation
would be transferred to the transferee bank and not of daily wagers.
The above description of statements and documents are held sufficient to prove the engagement of the
workman for 240 days in any year. Hence, his disengagement is held in violation of the Act because there is no
evidence that the workman was paid any notice wage or compensation on his termination. Hence, holding the
continuous engagement of the workman for 240 days proved, issue no.-1 & 2 are answered accordingly.
Issue No.- 3 :-
Since, the workman was not appointed against any regular vacancy following recruitment process, he was
only a daily wage worker and also the services of only permanent employees as well employees on probation were
transferred to the transferee bank i.e. State Bank of India from the transferor bank i.e. State Bank of Indore as per
Clause-7 & 8 of Merger Agreement, reinstatement of the workman is not a legally tenable relief to be granted to
him. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, a lump sum compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- (One Lac only) in lieu of all his claims will meet the ends of justice to which the workman is held
entitled. Issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
In the light of above observations and findings, the reference deserves to be answered as follows.
AWARD
The action of management of Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rampur Branch, Jabalpur/ Chief
General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal (M.P.) in discontinuing the services of Shri
Ravi Kumar Rajput S/o. Shri Chandu Singh Rajput, Ex. Peon w.e.f. 31.08.2010 is held unjust and against law.
Not absorbing the workman into State Bank of India from State Bank of Indore pursuant to merger of
State Bank of Indore into State Bank of India is held just valid and reasonable.
The workman is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac only) from
management Bank in lieu of all his claims to be paid to him within 30 days from the date of publication of
Award, failing which interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of Award, till payment.
DATE: 21/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2505
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1140.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (10/2001) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 12012/333/2000- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2001) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/333/2000- IR (B-I]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2001
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri P.N. Sharma, Chairman
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Co-ordination Committee
138, Shakti Nagar, Jabalpur (MP)-482001
Workman
Versus
The General Manager (Operations)
State Bank of Indore, Head Office, 5
Yeshwant Niwas Road, Indore (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 13th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 29/12/2000 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-
12012/333/2000/IR(B-I) dt. 29/12/2000. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Indore, Regional Office, Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar Garewal w.e.f. 14-7-99 is justified ? If not what relief he is
entitled ?
After registering the case on the basis of the 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 case of the workman in short is that the workman Shri Satish Kumar Garewal was appointed as Part
time Peon in Narsinghpur branch of the Bank in June 1994. He worked continuously till 13.07.1999. Thereafter he
was terminated without notice or wages in lieu of one month notice and without payment of retrenchment
compensation, in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act,
1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He was getting Rs. 60/-
per day as wages. It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with full back wages.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, interalia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
2506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in Narsinghpur branch of the
Bank and was paid as agreed by him. The provision of the Section 25-F of the Act. 1947 is not applicable and
therefore, the question of giving notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It is submitted that
his claim be rejected.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication by my
learned Predecessor:-
1)
Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Satish Kumar Garewal
w.e.f. 14.07.1999 is justified ?
2)
To what relief he is entitled ?
Issue No.-1 was decided against the workman by my learned Predecessor on the basis of evidence
recording a finding that the relationship of the workman with the management that he was a workman and the Bank
was the employer as well the fact that the workman worked continuously for 240 days in a year was not proved. On
the basis of finding on issue no.-1, the workman was held entitled to no relief.
The workman filed W.P. No.- 193/2013 before Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur which was decided
Single Bench vide order dated 15.06.2023. Hon’ble High Court observed that with regards to the claim of the
workman that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year which was disputed by management, there were
documents pertaining to bonus paid to the workman by the management which figured in the communication of
Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 07.10.1999, when the dispute was raised by the workman. The
communication by the Bank dated 25.11.1999 and 05.05.2000 which contained in the Annexure P/5 to the writ
petition, showed that the Bank informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner that as soon as the bonus register was
received, the information regarding payment of bonus to the workman will be produced before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner. The workman had filed a photocopy of this bonus payment before this Tribunal as well before
Hon’ble High Court as Annexure P/15 but this document was not entertained by this Tribunal as it was photocopy of
original, not admissible in evidence. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the original was with the Bank,
who was required to supply it to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and this Tribunal also, when it did not dispute
this document. Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to decide it a fresh while extending opportunity of
hearing as well opportunity to adduce evidence to both the parties.
Parties were given opportunity to file evidence. Argument of learned Counsel from the both the sides were
heard by me and the record was also perused.
In view of direction of Hon’ble High Court, the workman filed RTI original documents which go to show
that in the year 1996-97 the workman was paid bonus for working 25 days per month. This document further shows
that he was paid bonus in the year 1997-98 shown working for 25 days per month. Further he was paid bonus for the
year 1998-99 which was Rs. 1324/-. The number of days he worked is not mentioned but it is mentioned that he was
paid @ of Rs. 55/- per day and the total payment of wages paid during the year was 15895/-. On this basis, it comes
out that he worked for 289 days in the year 1998-99 as a daily wager. This document conclusively proves the fact
that firstly, the workman was engaged by the management Bank and secondly, he worked for more than 240 days in
the year preceding the date of his disengagement which is 14.07.1999. Since, there is nothing on record that the
workman was given any notice or retrenchment compensation as required in 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947,
hence, his disengagement is held against law.
Since, the workman was not appointed against any sanctioned post by following recruitment process and
also the fact that he died during the proceedings and being represented by his legal representatives, his reinstatement
is not a proper relief. In my considered view, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- lacs in lieu of all the
claims will meet the ends of justice.
In the light of above findings, following Award is passed.
AWARD
Holding the action of management State Bank of Indore, Regional Office Jabalpur in terminating the
services of deceased Satish Kumar Garewal w.e.f. 14.07.1999 unjustified in law, his legal representatives are
held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- lacs payable to them within 30 days from the date
of publication of Award in official Gazette, failing which interest @ of 8% from the date of Award till
payment.
DATE: 13/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2507
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1141.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (55/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012/13/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.55/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/13/2019- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/55/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Ashish Chouria,
Parasia Road, Opp. Krishna Tower,
Adarsh Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir,
Chhindwara (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Nepiur Town, 1227,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 16th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 09/05/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12012/13/2019 (IR(B-II)) dt. 09/05/2019. The dispute under reference related to :-
“क्या, आवेिक श्री आिीष चौररया दिनांक 20/9/11 से दिनांक 19/5/2014 तक ृंिाब नेिनल बैंक की िा ा ृराजसया
जिला जछिवाडा में बतौर िजनक वेतन भोगी कमवचारी जनयोजित े, यदि िां तो क्या िा ा प्रबंिक द्वारा आवेिक श्री आिीष चौररया
को जबना दकसी ृूवव सूचना/कारण के दिनांक 19/5/2014 से सेवा से िटाना न्यायसंगत िज? यदि निीं तो आवेिक क्या अनुतोष ृाने
का अजिकारी िज?”
After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and
service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management filed its written
statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.
The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor
did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved,
the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.
2508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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: 16/05/2024
नई दिल्ली, 11 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1142.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (147/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012/78/2017- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2024
S.O. 1142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.147/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/78/2017- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/147/2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Radhakant Yadav
S/o. Shri Gupteshwar Yadav
H.No. 2204/8, Nirmal Chand Jain
Ward, New Kanchanpur, Adhartal
Jabalpur (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager
UCO Bank,
Vehicle Factory Branch
Jabalpur (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 14th day of May -2024.)
As per letter dated 13/11/2017 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-
12012/78/2017 IR(B-II) dt. 13/11/2017. The dispute under reference related to :-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2509
After registering the case on reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on
them. The workman appeared and filed his statement of claim. The management also appeared on 21.08.2018
through its Counsel Shri Anoop Dubey who filed Vakalatanama for management. Thereafter, management absented
itself, hence the reference proceeded ex-parte against management vide order dated 17.07.2019.
According to the workman, he was appointed by the Branch Manager in January 2007 on the post of
Casual Labour/Peon paying wages on daily rate and continuously till December 2015 thus worked more than 240
days in continuous service of the Bank in every year. His salary was credited in his bank account by the
management. He was also paid bonus for this period. Being in continuous service of the Bank, he had acquired
permanent status. He was terminated by management without notice or compensation in violation of Section 25-F of
the Act. Since then, he is out of job. It is further his case that one Prakash Thakur was employed by the Bank in his
place after his termination who still continues in service of the Bank. Thus, according to the workman this action of
management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He has prayed that he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
No written statement was filed by management.
The workman filed his affidavit which is uncontroverted. He filed and proved the original passbook of his
saving Bank Account from 24.12.2007 to 20.07.2016, photocopy payment vouchers, bonus sheet which have been
marked Ex. W/1 to Ex. W/4, by way of secondary evidence under permission from this Tribunal after a requisition
to management to file originals of the documents was served under order of this Tribunal but Bank did not file these
documents.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel for workman Shri Arun Patel and have gone through the records.
The reference itself is the issue for determination.
Section 25-B and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short ‘Act’) are being reproduced as follows
:-
“25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in
uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized
leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due
to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one
year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the
date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not
less than—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less
than—
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually
worked under an employer shall include the days on which—
(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under
any other law applicable to the industrial establishment;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii)
he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment; and
(iv)
in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of
such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
2510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until—
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice; 1 * * * * *
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of
six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”
The workman has corroborated his case in his affidavit which is uncontroverted and is supported by his
passbook in which his salary for the period in question has been credited. It is further corroborated by bonus
statement, hence, he is held to have successfully proved his continuous engagement with the management Bank for a
period of 240 days and more in every year, including the year preceding the date of his termination. His statement
that he was not paid any notice pay or compensation, his disengagement is held against 25-G of the Act.
Since, the workman was a daily wager, not appointed following recruitment procedure against a sanctioned
vacancy, his reinstatement will not serve the ends of justice. Keeping all the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand, a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) in lieu of all his claims will meet the ends of justice, which he
is held entitled to receive from Bank within 30 days from the date of publication of Award in official Gazette, failing
which interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of Award, till payment.
The reference is answered accordingly.
DATE: 14/05/2024
P. K .SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1143.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iVuk ds iapkV ( 03 C of 2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y-12012/88/2010- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03 C of 2011) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/88/2010- IR(B-II]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
Reference Case No.:- 03 (C) of 2011
Between the management of the Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Pawapuri Vihar Bhavan, Bhagwanpur
Chowk, Muzaffarpur And their workman Sri Phool Babu Singhrepresented through the General Secretary, Bihar State
Central Bank Employee’s Union, Central Office, 2nd Floor, B Block, Mourya Lok Complex, Patna, Bihar.
For the management:-
Sri Siddharth Harsh, Advocate.
For the workman:-
Sri Rajesh Sahay, Advocate.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2511
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dt- 3rd May, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- L-12012/88/2010-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 09.02.2011 the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the management
of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Pawapuri Vihar Bhavan, Bhagwanpur Chowk, Muzaffarpur And their workman
Sri Phool Babu Singh represented through the General Secretary, Bihar State Central Bank Employee’s Union, Central
Office, 2nd Floor, B Block, Mourya Lok Complex, Patna, Bihar for adjudication to this tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur over alleged
illegal retrenchment of Shri Phool Babu Singh from service w.e.f Sep. 2008 as he worked continuously for
more than 13 years w.e.f 1994. If it is unfair labour practice what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. As per the written submission ( W.S ) of the workman Phool Babu Singh. The case of the complainant is that Phool
Babu Singh had been working continuously for more than thirteen ( 13 ) years from the year 1994. Phool Babu Singh vide
his letter dt-12.05.2008 represented before the Labour Commissioner Central stating therein that he had been working for
the last 13 years in the management bank but his service was discontinued, he lodged a complaint against action of the
management for not absorbing as permanent sub-staff to higher authority of the bank. Letter on his dispute was raised
before the ALC (C) Patna disclosing he has worked for last 13 years and he prayed for regularisation of his service in the
bank as a subordinate staff. Since he was not a permanent employee so his name was not appearing in the muster-roll. It is
further asserted that his payment were made on day to day basis through payment vouchers and thereafter was no
discontinuation of his service in the said branch except Sunday and holiday. It is further asserted that many time, Phool
Babu Singh was forced by the management to receive payment of his wage in some fake names but it was always in his
handwriting signing over the vouchers. This act of the management is not only illegal but a fraudulent one. It is further
asserted that Garkha Branch vide letter dt- 13.10.2001 accepted his working for 129 days in the year 2001 and it is also
mentioned Phool Babu Singh is still working. It is further asserted that there are various branches where there is no sub-
staff was posted and the bank is in the dire need to recruit the sub-staff class IV in order to post one in every branch.Thus
the work of Phool Babu Singh is entitled to be regularized in the bank service and the management is totally involved in
unfair labour practice by discontinuing his service arbitrarily.
3. Even after notice issued to the management bank, the management bank did not turned up before this tribunal then
tribunal has no option then to proceed ex-parte hearing vide order dt-21.03.2012. Thereafter workman side examined
altogether three witnesses including workman, who are namely W.W-1 Harbansh Singh, W.W-2 Motilal Mahato and
W.W-3 Phool Babu Singh himself. It also appears from the record that the workman side filed a petition before this
tribunal on 28.05.2014 with a prayer to direct the management bank to produce vouchers accordingly the notice was sent
to the bank vide memo no.-149 dt-30.06.2014 but management side did not produced any documents as asked by the
workman side. Ultimately the evidence of the workman side got to be closed vide order dt-12.10.2015 and the case has
fixed for the argument but workman was never vigilant in his own case and did not complete his argument rather he
became absent from 19.03.2018 on wards. In the mean time management bank filed vakalatnama in favour of Sri Rakesh
Ranjan, Advocate on 19.09.2018. Records show that parties became absent and in the mean time corona broke out and so
no proceeding of the case could be taken up in the absence of both the sides. Record shows that on 16.12.2021 both the
parties appeared. Bank management filed fresh vakalatnama in favour of Mr Sidharth Harsh Advocate and workman also
deputed Mr. Rajesh Sahay, Advocate from his side on dt- 24.02.2022. Record shows that management side appeared and
filed a petition for recalling the ex-parte order on 07.03.2022. After hearing of both the sides the prayer of recalling ex-
parte proceeding of management is allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand ) vide order dt- 16.03.2022.
Subsequently management bank filed written statement on 07.04.2022 and also filed a petition on 28.04.2022 for giving
opportunity for the cross-examination of already examined witnesses from the workman side that was also allowed with
cost.
4. As per the written statement filed on behalf of the management bank on 07.04.2022 that the claim as filed by the
complainant Phool Babu Singh for his regularization is not maintainable. He has never worked continuously for 13 years
as claims rather he was casual labour and he was engaged by the Garkha Branch of Central Bank of India on daily wages.
As per record the workman has worked for only 93 days in the year 2000 and for only 78 days in the year 2001. It is
further asserted that the workman Phool Babu Singh is not only person who was engaged in the Garkha Branch on daily
wages rather there were other persons too who were engaged on daily wages but the workman is claiming illegally
showing branch for the vouchers prepared in the name of some other persons. It is further asserted that workman has to
prove he was continuously work for 13 years in Garkha Branch. It is further asserted that there is no rule and provision for
regularization of such casual labourers in the Central Bank of India and even there is no provision of any absorption of
2512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
casual labourer in Central Bank of India. It is further asserted that the workman did not work for continuous 240 days in
the preceding year of his alleged termination year-2008. As the matter of fact the workman was never terminated by the
bank as there was no such occasion because of reasons that the workman had never been staff of the Central Bank of India
and he was never engaged against the sanctioned vacant post. It is further asserted that workman was paid for his service
rendered for to the Garkha Branch as a labourer through vouchers. The vouchers in the name of other has been paid to the
name lenders who were casual labour on daily wages at the given time and this itself proves the workman never working
continuously. Thus on the facts and circumstances set-forth above the claim of the workman devoid of merit and he is not
entitled for any relief.
5. Having considering the rival submissions of workman as well as of the management side, the following issue are
recasted for the adjudication;
(i)
“Whether the claim of the workman Phool Babu Singh was working continuously more than 13 years
from September-1994 to September-2008 is established”.
(ii)“
Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur over
alleged illegal retrenchment of Shri Phool Babu Singh from service w.e.f Sep. 2008 as he worked
continuously for more than 13 years w.e.f 1994. If it is unfair labour practice what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
6. In order to establish the claim of the workman, the representative of the workman examined altogether three witness,
who are namely Harbansh Singh as W.W-1, Motilal Mahto as W.W-2 and Phool Bahu Singh as W.W-3.
7. It is worth mentioning here that W.W-1 Harbansh Singh was produced by the workman side at the time of
ex-parte proceeding and when the management side appeared and prayed to recall the ex-parte order and to direct the
workman side to produce witnesses of workman, the workman side only produced W.W-2 Motilal Mahto and W.W-3
the workman for cross-examination he could not produced w.W-1 Harbansh Singh for cross-examination due to his
death i.e evident from the order sheet dt- 28.04.2022.
Besides oral evidence workman side got some documents marked as Extd.;
(i)
Ext.-W Information given by the management bank to the quarry of workman
Phool Babu Singh vide letters dt- 20.09.2012 and 31.11.2012.
(ii)
Ext.-W/1 Payment voucher of dt- 10.06.2005 amounting of Rs. 50/-.
(iii)
Ext.-W/2 Copy of the loan recovery register through which letters served to
different customers i.e from page-04 to 22.
(iv)
Ext.-W/3 Payment voucher of dt- 12.07.2004 in favour of Phool Babu Singh.
(v)
Ext.-W/4 Payment voucher of dt- 30.05.2006 showing Misc. expenditure given to
Phool Babu Singh.
(vi)
Ext.-W/5 Copy of service of the notice to customer from 2001 to 2003 served by
Phool Babu Singh.
(vii)
Ext.-W/6 Copy of the payment voucher of 2005 to 2006 i.e from page 01 to 56 of
supplementary documents.
(viii)
Ext.-W/7 Photo copy of payment vouchers for the year 2006 to page 57 to 187.
(ix)
Ext.-W/8 Letters of dt- 31.11.2012 and 20.08.2014 given by the bank to the Phool
Babu Singh under quarry of Right to Information Act.
(x)
Ext.-W/9 Petition of dt- 17.08.2012 and 22.07.2014 given by the Phool Babu Singh
to information officer of Central Bank of India, Regional Office.
8. On the other hand management side examined just one witness Sushil Kumar Yadav. Beside oral evidence management
also filed some documents and get it marked Extd as;
(i)
Ext.-M/1 Copy of the salary sheet of all the employee of Garkha Branch of Central
Bank of India from the August-2007 to December-2007.
(ii)
Ext.-M/2 Hand written of salary scroll of Garkha Branch from period the
January 2007 to July 2007.
9. Now this tribunal securitizes the evidence of workman first W.W-1 Harbansh Singh who deposed on 11.11.2013. Who
stated before this tribunal, that he was Arm Guard in the Garkha Branch of the Central Bank of India from 1996 to 2005
and during his tenure Phool Babu Singh was doing duties of a casual peon and he got payment @ Rs. 60/- per day. This
tribunal finds that this witness was examined at the time of ex-parte proceeding and when the management side appeared
and on the prayer of the bank ex-parte proceeding was recalled and also workman was direct to produce witness but
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2513
Harbansh Singh could not be appeared for cross-examination due to his death as per petition filed by the workman side on
28.04.2022.
10. W.W-2 Motilal Mahto who is the employee of Durga Service Station who deposed before this tribunal that there is one
account of Durga Service Station in the Garkha Branch of Central Bank of India and he used to visit to Garkha Branch
from his firm for his work and when ever he came to the Garkha Branch he found Phool Babu Singh was working as a
peon in the said branch till the year 2006.
In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-5 that he is working at Durga Service Station as a
Nozalman and there is manager also who maintain the account of petrol pump and some time he sends other staff like me
for the draft in the said bank. In para-9 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that Phool Babu Singh
filed this case because he was retrenched from the Central Bank of India and he further denied that bank took the service
of Phool Babu Singh as per requirement. In para-11 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that petrol
pump manager also sent him to the Garkha Branch bank for making drafts. In para-13 this witness stated that he does not
remember how many class IV and officers were posted in Garkha Branch. This witness further admitted in para-14 of the
cross-examination, besides Phool Babu Singh one Ram Babu, Balram Manjhi and one Mr. Choudhary were also posted in
the said branch. In para-15 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he does not know R.P.Roy and
C. Roy were class IV employee in the Garkha Branch. This witness further denied that he deposed here at the instruction
of Phool Babu Singh.
10.
W.W-3 Phool Babu Singh who stated before this tribunal that he discharged duties as a casual daily wager in
Garkha Branch of Central Bank of India from 1994 to September 2006. Initially he received payment of his wages @ Rs.
20/- per day later on it was enhanced to Rs. 30/- and finally he received payment of wages from the bank @ Rs. 60/- day.
He further stated that he always received his payment through vouchers and he put his signature on the back of the
vouchers. This witness further stated that some time voucher were prepared in the name of other like Shankar Sah, Vijay
Sah, Dinesh Singh, Sonu Kumar and Arbind Kumar as per instruction of manager, abd he was forced to put the signature
of these persons on the vouchers for receiving the payment. He also stated that manager told him it is done because if you
work more than 240 days in his own name you can claim for the regularization of service. This witness further stated that
Harbansh Singh the staff of bank and Motilal Mahto customer have apprised about my continuous working in the said
branch. This witness further proved some documents i.e The information supplied by the bank on his quarry under Right
to Information Act of dt- 20.09.2012 and 31.11.2012 marked as Ext.-W. Payment voucher of dt- 10.06.2005 received by
Phool Babu Singh amounting Rs. 50/- as Ext.-W/1, Acknowledgement of notice of the customer served by Phool Babu
Singh from the period from 12.07.2004 to 30.05.2006 ( page-4 to 22 ) marked as Ext. W/2. This witness further proved
another payment voucher of dt- 12.07.2004 received by him as W/3 and payment voucher of dt- 30.05.2006 marked as
Ext.-W/4. This witness further proved the acknowledgement of the customer of the notice served by him from the period
of 2001 to 2003 ( page 25 to 65 ) marked as Ext.- W/5. This witness further proved the copy of the payment voucher of
the year 2005 ( page 01 to 56 ) of supplementary documents marked as Ext.-W/6 and further proved copy of the payment
voucher of the year 2006 ( page 57 to 187 ) marked as Ext.- W/7. This witness further proved the information supplied by
the management bank of dt- 20.03.2014 and 31.11.2012 to Phool Babu Singh under the Right to Information Act, marked
as Ext.- W/8. This witness further proved the petition given by him to the information officer of Central Bank of India
under the RTI Act of dt- 17.08.2012 and 22.07.2014 marked as Ext.-W/9.
In cross-examination this witness categorically admitted in para-6 he never filed any petition in the bank for
doing the work of casual worker. In para-7 this witness admits that bank employee R.B. Roy, P.K. Choudhary, C. Rai and
B. Manjhi are very much acquainted with him. All the four above were class IV employee of the bank. In para-11 of the
cross-examination this witness categorically denied that bank took his service of an on duty of class IV staff and he further
denied that there is no rule in the Central Bank of India to making a casual daily worker in the permanent category.
11.
On the other hand management examined one witness namely Sushil Kumar Yadavas M.W-1 who deposed
before this tribunal on 01.02.2023. He filed his affidavited evidence stating therein that he is the Branch Manager of
Garkha Branch of Central Bank of India at present. He came to know the present case from the documents available in his
bank. This witness further stated that the complainant has brought this dispute for regularization of his service on the basis
of working from period 1994 to 2007 as a labourer. This witness further stated that prior to 2006 to 2007 there was no
vacancy of class IV employee in the Garkha Branch because two peons and one cleaning staff were posted in the said
branch this is evident from the salary register and it is proved as Ext.-M/1. This witness further stated that on the basis of
documents he found complainant was working as a casual labour in the branch and he never worked continuously on each
working day in a calendar year. This witness further stated that there is no rule in Central Bank of India to regularise a
casual labourer as a permanent employee. This witness further stated that in his Central Bank of India, payment of wages
is always given to the named worker. This witness proved the salary register of the period August 2007 to December 2007
of all the employee of Garkha Branch as Ext.-M/1 and further prove the salary scroll from the period of January 2007 to
July 2007 as Ext.-M/2.
In cross-examination this witness categorically admits in para-11 that Phool Babu Singh never worked with him
and he saw him in this tribunal only. In para-12 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated Phool Babu
Singh was never employee of the bank and he discharged a duty of a casual labourer for which he was duly paid. In
2514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
para-13 of the cross-examination this witness admits that the documents he placed before this tribunal and marked it
asExts are of regarding permanent staff of the Garkha Branch. This witness further admits that in para-16 that casual
worker / daily wager gets payment through vouchers and vouchers always kept for 10 years and this witness further
denied that he is not aware about fact of the case and deposed at the instance of management bank.
12.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the workman is that workman Phool Babu Singh discharged his duties as a
sub-staff in the Garkha Branch of Central Bank of India from 1994 to 2007 continuously.It is further argued that
workman, through the payment vouchers, used to received his payment from the branch. It is further argued that initially
management side did not produce the payment vouchers but when workman asked the payment vouchers under RTI
management produced payment vouchers of the year 2005 and 2006 i.e marked Ext.-W/6 & W/7 respectively that is
strong documentary evidence of Phool Babu Singh was in continuance of service from 2005 to 2006. It is further argued
that workman has discharged his duties for more than 240 days in continuance preceding his termination and thus the
management has violated the principle of section 25(B) by ignoring to him not to regularised his service and also
committed a kind of unfair labour practice by taking the service of workman for more than 13 years and thereafter
retrenched him from the service that also covered u/s- 2(oo) of the I.D.Act. Hence action of the management by
retrenching the Phool Babu Singh from his service is not legal and not justified and this is the clear cut unfair labour
practice on the part of the management bank.
13.
On the other hand it is argued by the representative of the management side. The claim of the workman Phool
Babu Singh is not maintainable because he was never in continuance of service as a sub-staff rather Phool Babu Singh was
engaged by the Garkha Branch as per requirement and for which he was duly paid. It is further argued that Phool Babu
Singh claimed he was discharging the duties of sub-staff but no details of his working is given either in his statement of
claim or in his evidence before this tribunal rather he claimed in his evidence he discharged the duties as a daily wager and
the document as marked by the workman side shows that whenever he gave his service to the bank as a daily wager he
was paid on that very day that is indicative of this facts he was never in continuance of service as a sub-staff. It is further
argued that Phool Babu Singh himself deposed before this tribunal he has worked till 2006 in the Garkha Branch.
However, he raised the dispute for the working from 1994 to September 2008 for whichthe terms of reference is sent for
adjudication here. It is further argued that workman did not produce any documentary evidence of his payment from
Garkha Branch for the period of 1994 to 2000. Moreover, workman has been completely failed to establish, he has worked
for more than 240 days in continuance preceding his alleged termination September 2008. It is further argued that Garkha
Branch of the Central Bank of India was well equipped with the class IV employees there was no vacant post in the said
branch so there is no question of taking the services of Phool Babu Singh regularly as a sub-staff rather bank took his
services as an when required for which he was duly paid hence the action of the management bank was neither illegal nor
unjustified.
14.
Considering the all the facts and materials available on the record as placed by the both the parties and further
considering the submissions as advanced on behalf of the both the sides, this tribunal finds that the claim of the workman
Phool Babu Singh is the discharged his duties continuously for more than 13 years in the Garkha Branch of management
bank from 1994 to September 2008 and he was not regularised by the management bank after prayer made before the
authority of the bank. In the context Phool Babu Singh himself deposed before this tribunal he was working as a casual
daily wager in the Garkha Branch of Central Bank of India from 1994 to September 2006 and for which he was paid @
Rs. 20/- per day in the initial year later on he was enhanced Rs. 30/- per day and lastly Rs.60/- per day that shows that
workman worked at Garkha Branch till 2006 only not till September 2008 as per the terms of reference moreover,
workman did not produce any documentary evidence regarding his working from 1994 to 2000. Whatever the document
placed by the workman that shows that the payment voucher dt- 10.06.2005 Ext.-W/1 is amounting to Rs. 50/- paid to
Phool Banu Singh and Ext.-W/3 payment voucher of dt- 12.07.2004. Ext.-W/4 a payment voucher of dt-30.05.2006
showing Misc. expenditure given to Phool Babu Singh. Ext.-W/6 and W/7 payment vouchers of the year 2005 – 2006 that
contains 187 vouchers in total i.e paid to the Phool Babu Singh on the day he has given any work to the bank these
payment vouchers show that Phool Babu Singh was not in continuance of his services more than 240 days either in year
2005 or 2006 rather whenever he gave his duty as a daily wager during the 2005-2006 he was paid accordingly by the
bank. This tribunal further finds that some documents also filed by the workman i.e not marked exhibited but the
document of 13.10.2001 i.e issued by the Branch Manger, Garkha Branch to the Regional Officer regarding casual
labourer in which it is reported by the bank Phool Babu Singh worked as a daily wager in the year 2000 -129 days and
from August 2000 to July 2001 198 days those documents not marked Extd. by the workman side but it establish
workman was not in continuance of service through of the year either in year 2000 – 2001. This tribunal further finds that
workman Phool Babu Singh filed details of the customers to whom he served the notice during the period of 19.01.2001 to
06.08.2003 i.e marked Ext.-W/5 but this document also does not show he had served notice to the customers daily given
by the bank rather it shows that whenever he was given this duty to serve the notice that details is mentioned. This tribunal
further finds that workman claim that he has discharged the duty in continuance for more than 240 days in the preceding
year of the alleged termination September 2008 but no cogent and authentic evidence is produced by the workman himself
either in his oral evidence or by documentary evidence rather there is difference period of about his work in his statement
of claim and in his evidence before this tribunal as in his evidence, Phool Babu Singh claim before this tribunal he
worked as a daily wager in Garkha Branch from 1994 to September 2006 and however, in his statement of claim he
disclosed the work till 2008. No document is placed by the workman of the year 2007 and 2008. So workman has been
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2515
totally failed to establish he was discharging continuance service for more than 240 days preceding his alleged termination
as per the terms of reference. This tribunal further finds and hold that claim for regularization for any workman in any
industry like bank. One who has to discharge continuous duties for more than 240 days in a calendar year and then it is
said he has discharged regular duty as per Section 25(B) of the I.D.Act but here in the instant case, the workman Phool
Babu Singh failed to establish he was discharging his duties continuous for more than 240 days in a calendar year
preceding his alleged termination September 2008 as per terms of reference. This tribunal further finds that four class IV
employees were posted in Garkha Branch during the tenure of the Phool Babu Singh i.e himself admitted by the Phool
Babu Singh in para-7 of the cross-examination. This admission of the Phool Babu Singh clearly shows that there was no
need of class IV staff in the said branch and this is also reported by the management witness before this tribunal. This
tribunal further finds that management witness claim that Phool Babu Singh was simply casual daily wager and bank took
his service as and when required for which he was duly paid and this is also evident from the payment voucher as marked
by the workman side. This tribunal further finds that two other witness namely Harbansh Singh W.W-1 the Arm Guard
and Motilal Mahto W.W-2 who are the customer also supported this facts Phool Babu Singh was working as a casual
labourer in the Garkha Branch this is also not denied by the management bank but as per the schedule of terms of
reference workman Phool Babu Singh has been completely failed to establish his claim about his continuous working for
more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his alleged termination September 2008 either by oral or documentary
evidence. So this tribunal finds and hold that management bank has committed no violation of Industrial Dispute Act and
did not commit any unfair labour practice rather whatever duties as a daily wager Phool Babu Singh discharged his duties
in the Garkha Branch he was duly paid because there was permanent class IV employees posted in the Garkha Branch and
there was no need of class IV staff but on the exigency other Misc. work Garkha Branch took the service of Phool Babu
Singh intermittently and on from 1994 to 2006 as per his evidence also can’t ruled out.
Accordingly on the basis of the material available on record as discussed above this tribunal finds and hold that
workman Phool Babu Singh is not entitled for reinstatement and regularization in the service of the management bank as
per his claim. But taking into consideration his engagement though intermittently for a long time in the Garkha Branch of
management bank, workman Phool Babu Singh is entitled for a lum-sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rs. Two Lakhs only )
as a relief from the management bank. Accordingly management bank is directed to make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rs.
Two Lakhs only ) to the workman Phool Babu Singh within two month from date of publication / Gazatte of the award.
This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer,
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1144.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
bykgkckn बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; हैदराबाद ds iapkV (31/2007) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[la- ,y - 12011/164/2006- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allhabad Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/164/2006- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
2516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 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 9th day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2007
Between:
The President,
Allahabad Bank Employees’ Union,
Shalimar Apartments, Yousufguda Road,
Hyderabad – 500 038.
….. Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
Allahabad Bank,
Zonal Office, No.3-6-465, 1st and 2nd floor,
Main Road, Himayath Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Laxminarayana, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12011/164/2006-IR(B.II) dated 7.6.2007
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in awarding punishment of withdrawal of
special allowance to Sh. B. Ramesh, Special Assistant is proper and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman concerned is entitled?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.31/2007 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that the employee, Sri Beedu Ramesh, the workman joined the Respondent Bank on 19.07.1976 as a
Clerk Typist. It is submitted that in July, 1980 he was transferred from Kakinada Branch to Secunderabad Branch
of the Respondent Bank. Later, workman became eligible for promotion and posted as a Special Assistant at
Vijayawada branch of the Respondent Bank from 11.01.1988. The Special Assistant post carried special allowance
with it which he was in receipt since 1988. While so, Sri Beedu Ramesh was transferred to Secunderabad branch of
the Respondent Bank on 23.07.1990. He is presently working at Maruthinagar Branch, Hyderabad of the
Respondent Bank. The Petitioner Union submits that on 03.07.1999 Sri Beedu Ramesh availed a loan of
Rs.16,000/- against pledge of 3 (three) National Savings Certificates issued by the Post Master, Secunderabad Head
Post Office, the particulars of which are as follows:
S.No.
Number of the Certificate
Date of Issue
Amount
1
16DD285218
23.03.1996
Rs. 5,000/
2
09EE355454
16.01.1997
Rs.10,000/
3
15DD853463
14.03.1997
Rs. 5,000/
Prior to this, on 02.07.1997, the employee had applied and availed a loan against the above-mentioned NSCs except
the NSC No. 15DD853463. While granting the loan the Respondent Bank ensured that the employee complied with
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2517
the rules and procedures laid down in this regard. It is submitted that the Respondent Bank granted a loan of
Rs 16000/- to Sri Beedu Ramesh on 03.07.1999 against the above-mentioned NSCs after fulfilling the formalities
connected therewith. A letter of undertaking / agreement for repayment of loan, promissory note, letter to the Post
Office assigning the NSCs in favour of the Respondent Bank, including discharge on the reverse of the NSC No.
15DD853463 offered as security. It should be noted that the first two NSCs were having the discharge certificate
while Sri Beedu Ramesh was granted loan earlier on 02.07.1997. It is further submitted that from the record of the
Respondent Bank it is evident that on 03.07.1999 itself i.e., the day of sanction of loan to Sri Beedu Ramesh, the
Bank addressed a letter to the Post Master, Secunderabad Head Post Office requesting him to record the Bank's lien
of the NSCs in their records and return the NSCs to them thereafter. This letter of the Respondent Bank constituted
documentary evidence at the departmental enquiry held against Sri Beedu Ramesh. Though this is within the
knowledge of the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer, they have conveniently omitted to deal with it to
arrive at the truth. It is submitted that at the enquiry the Presenting Officer produced Sri B.N.Mohanty, the then
Chief Manager of Secunderabad Branch as his witness, MW1. His role before the enquiry was only for introducing
and identifying all the prosecution's documents. The documents that were placed before the enquiry were not the
originals. They were all Photostat copies. Even the Photostat copies were not certified under Banker's Book
Evidence Act. The testimony of witness, MW1, was not based on his personal knowledge but from the records. But
this witness in his official report / complaint addressed to Mahankali Police Station stated that the NSCs were not
assigned in favour of the Bank at the time of grant of loan. This statement is contrary to the contents of one of the
documents furnished to the Police along with the complaint. Further, it is submitted that Sri R.N.Mohanty, MW1
was examined as PW1 in the criminal case filed by the Respondent Bank against the employee Sri Beedu Ramesh in
CC no 1605/2004. What was deposed by PW1 (MW1) was to the effect that during internal inspection of the Bank
in the year 2000 the said NSCs pledged by the accused (Beedu Ramesh) were found missing. He further deposed
that "as the branch was shifted to new premises they thought that the said NSCs were misplaced during transit.” It is
submitted that the Respondent Bank instead of making a thorough probe into as to how the NSCs pledged and taken
to the Post Office for marking a lien on them on 03.07.1999 have not been brought back and kept with other
connected documents of the loan. However, the Respondent Bank has categorically stated in their letter dated
09.06.2000 to Sri Beedu Ramesh that the NSCs pledged to them were lost in transit while forwarding them to the
Post Office. It is further submitted that the Respondent Bank filed a complaint with Mahankali Police Station,
Secunderabad on 25.10.2002 about the loss of the NSC Certificates which were under their custody before shifting
the branch from l15, Park Lane, S D Road, Secunderabad in the year 1999. It is evident that the Bank went on
giving different versions about the alleged loss of the NSCs. It is further submitted that the employee, Sri Beedu
Ramesh obliged the Respondent Bank by providing them with Xerox copies of the original NSCs as per Ex.M14
dated 10.06.2000. This letter Ex.M14 gives the impression that the employee had asked the Bank to apply for
duplicates of the originals duly assigned in favour of the Bank. But the Respondent Bank made it appear that they
had written to the Post Office because the investor, Sri Beedu Ramesh wanted them to apply for duplicate NSCs as
the originals were lost. Further, it is submitted that the show-cause notice served on the employee, on 24.05.2003
did not carry the above details. The Disciplinary Authority has chosen to mention in the charge sheet dated
09.02.2004 that the NSCs against which loan was granted "was not traceable and not assigned to Bank". The charge
sheet goes to state further that two NSCs were encashed and discharged by the employee. It is submitted that at the
instance of the Respondent Bank, the Chief Manager of Secunderabad branch has gone to Mahan Kali Police Station
on 31.12.2003 to lodge a complaint. The opening sentence of the letter says, "This is to report a case of cheating and
misappropriation perpetrated in our Branch purported by our employees. We furnish necessary documents and
details of the case.” Based on such a report and the documents sent therewith, the Police Sub Inspector issued FIR
and conducted investigation. It is on record that the FIR was read over to the complainant who admitted it to be
correctly recorded. But the FIR copy was not made available. Sri Beedu Ramesh was the accused in the CC no
1605/2004 filed by the State under S406 and 420 IPC. The Respondent Bank cooperated with the state in
prosecuting Sri Beedu Ramesh in the criminal proceedings. It is submitted that the rules of natural justice as required
were not followed at the enquiry held against the employee. The Enquiry Officer permitted the Presenting Officer
to mark the letters as management exhibits without producing the authors thereof. The letter marked as Exhibit M-
15 was the one secured by the Bank from the Secunderabad Head Post Office. Likewise the letter marked as Exhibit
M-18 is the one obtained from Sri.N.Prabhakar Reddy, Daftary of the Respondent Bank about the encashment of
two NSCs. The Defence was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Authors of Management Exhibits, M15 &
M18. But the EO despite objection by the Defence made use of the documents extensively as evidenced in his
report. While these are some of the shortcomings in the conduct of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has chosen to
give his conclusions / findings based on his understanding and surmises of the Exhibits M14, M15, M18 treating
them as evidence. Further, it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has aligned himself with the allegations leveled
against Sri Beedu Ramesh in the charge sheet by making use of the contents of the above mentioned exhibits which
were not proved by the Authors. The Petitioner Union states that the following findings of the Enquiry officer is
sufficient to hold that the findings are perverse.
2518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“On the reverse side of the NSCs the dates 29.04.2002 and 28.01.2003 are written. The putting of the date on the
NSCs before enclosing them is a clear indication that they were with the CE unauthorisedly and were encashed by
him…”
This is further corroborated by the letter of Sri.Prabhakar Reddy: Daftary who advised that the CE handed over the
NSCs to him duly discharging them on 29.04.2002"
Enquiry report was not furnished to the workman Sri Beedu Ramesh, for his study and submissions. The
Disciplinary Authority chose to propose the punishment accepting with the findings of the EO by issuing second
show cause notice on 07.10.2005. This illegal action of the Disciplinary Authority was agitated successfully before
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP no.22446/2005. The Charge sheet alleges, "Moreover, you have neither
paid a single monthly installment as per terms of sanction which was accepted by you..." It is submitted that
contrary views were taken by the Enquiry Officer in his findings and the Disciplinary Authority in his Second Show
Cause Notice, on the question of responsibility for repayment. While the Enquiry Officer states ".. It is said that the
CE has given a mandate for recovery of loan from his salary but no such mandate was brought on records." The
Enquiry Officer further observed it is not the responsibility of the branch to recover, it is the responsibility of the CE
to repay the loan." The Disciplinary Authority held that the employee had given a mandate for recovering the
installments from your monthly salary." It is evident that on the basis of such perverse appreciation the employee
was found guilty and punished. It is submitted that the submissions made by Sri Beedu Ramesh against the Enquiry
Officer's findings appears to have had no impact on the closed mind of the Disciplinary Authority who maintained
that "the enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has rightly
appreciated the evidence introduced in the enquiry. I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and accept the
same in Toto." Thereafter on 07.01.2006 the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment on Sri Beedu Ramesh,
after the personal hearing held on 06.01.2006. It is further submitted that the appeal preferred to the Appellate
Authority on 21.02.2006 by Sri Beedu Ramesh was disposed off after the expiry of the mandatory period prescribed
in the Settlement. Hence, prayed to set aside the punishment imposed as illegal and unjustified directing the
Respondent Bank to restore the Special Allowance withdrawn effective from 07.01.2006 and render justice.
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:
It is submitted that the Workman, while filing the claim statement, did not file any records or documents in support
of his claim, as required under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC and therefore, the claim should be dismissed on this
ground alone. The Workman has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has not divulged all the facts of the
matter. This Petition therefore is malafide, baseless and devoid of merits. It is submitted that Workman indulged in
criminal misconduct by misusing his employment in the Bank and caused financial losses to the Bank. Apart from
filing and FIR, a charge sheet was issued to the Workman for violating conduct rules of the Bank. An enquiry was
ordered departmentally and in the inquiry the Workman was held guilty of the misconduct. The enquiry was
conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the Workman participated in the inquiry along
with his defense representative. After agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, the competent authority
imposed the penalty by taking a lenient view of the misconduct. Therefore, the Workman's contention that the
punishment was unfair and unjust calls for rejection. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim of the Workman.
4.
On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for
determination in this case:-
I
Whether the action of the Respondent Management of M/s. Andhra Bank vide order dated 7.1.2006
of awarding the punishment of withdrawal of special allowance to workman Sri Beedu Ramesh,
Special Assistant is proper and justified?
II.
To what relief the Workman is entitled?
5.
In the present matter Departmental enquiry conducted by Respondent against the workman has
been held not valid vide order dated 31.1.2014 of the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court, Respondent was accorded the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the
charge levelled against the workman and workman was provided opportunity to produce evidence in
rebuttal.
6.
Respondent Management has examined MW1 and MW2 and has also exhibited the Photostat copies
of documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M21. Document Ex.M1 is the charge sheet, Ex.M2 is the corrigendum dated
4.3.2004 to the charge sheet Ex.M3 is the letter dated 6.11.2004 addressed to the Enquiry Officer by the
Disciplinary Authority for adjournment of enquiry, Ex.M4 is the letter dated 7.6.2005 to the Petitioner
informing him about enquiry proceeding, Ex.M5 is the list of documents and witnesses submitted to the
Enquiry Officer, Ex.M6 is the certificate relating to tenure of Petitioner at Secunderabad branch,Ex.M7 is
the loan application dated 3.7.1999 submitted by Petitioner, Ex.M8 is the letter regarding sanction of loan to
Petitioner dated 3.7.1999, Ex.M9 is the letter dated 3.7.1999 of WW1 regarding his acknowledgement to the
sanction letter duly agreeing all terms and conditions, Ex.M10 is the a) letter from WW1 waiving
presentment of pronote, b) Demand promissory note executed by WW1 in respect of the loan of Rs.16000/-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2519
sanctioned to him, c) receipt executed by WW1 confirming the receipt of loan amount of Rs.16000/-,
Ex.M11 is the loan agreement dt.3.7.1999, Ex.M12 is the office copy of the letter dated 3.7.1999 addressed by
the branch to HPO: Secunderabad, Ex.M13 is the letter dated 9.6.2000 to WW1 informing loss of NSCs,
Ex.M14 is the letter dated 10.6.2000 of WW1 to the bank in response to the bank’s letter, requesting the
bank to arrange for duplicate NSCs, Ex.M15 is the letter dated 4.3.2003 of Post Office to the Bank informing
about the NSCs etc., Ex.M16 is the statement of loan account of WW1 showing “no payments” during
3.7.1999 to 31.1.2004, Ex.M17 is the letter dated 23.5.2003 of WW1 to the Bank informing that Maturity
amounts of his three NSCs were not credited to his account, Ex.M18 is the letter of Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy
to the Bank informing about three NSCs, Ex.M19 is the NSC No.285218, Ex.M20 is the Photostat copy of
NSC No.355454, Ex.M21 is the written brief dated 30.6.2005 submitted by MW1 to the Enquiry Officer.
Findings:-
7.
Point No.I: Respondent counsel contended that the workman Sri Beedu Ramesh was charge sheeted
for committing misconduct of encashing NSCs pledged by him to the bank in the matter of loan taken by him.
Therefore, an enquiry was conducted against him following the principles of natural justice and workman
was found guilty of committing gross misconduct of doing act prejudicial to the interest of Bank involving
and likely to involve bank in serious loss under Clause 5(j) of M.O.S. dated 10.4.2002. It would be pertinent
to mention here and that the Departmental Enquiry conducted against workman has been held not valid
vide order dated 31.1.2014.
The contents of the charges levelled against the workman vide Ex.M1 has been enumerated in Ex.M1, which are
extracted as below:-
That while you were posted and functioning as Special Assistant at our Secunderabad branch from 23.07.1990 to
31.07.1999. You availed a loan of Rs.16,000/- against security of your National Savings Certificates aggregating
to Rs.20,000/- on 03.07.1999 from our Secunderabad branch through your application dated 03.07.1999. The
details of NSCs lodged by as security are as under:
S.No.
Certificate
Registration No.
Amount
Date of Issue
1.
2.
3.
16DD 285218
09EE 355454
15DD 853463
35287
41027
43295
5000.00
10000.00
5000.00
23.03.1996
16.01.1997
14.03.1907
During the year 1999 you were transferred to M:utinagar Branch as Special Assistant w.e.f. 02.08.1999.
It was very much in your knowledge during the year June, 2000 itself that the above NSCs against which
you raised a loan of Rs.l6.000 - were not traceable and not assigned to Bank.
Subsequently, it was advised by the Head Post Office, Secunderabad that out of above three NSCs, the
under mentioned two NSCs were encashed discharged by the investor i.e. yourself.
S.No.
Certificate
Registration No.
Amount
Date of Issue
Date of
encashment
1.
2.
16DD 285218
09EE 355454
35287
41027
5000.00
10000.00
23.03.1996
16.01.1997
30.04.2002
28.01.2003
Thus, you unauthorisedly discharged/ encashed the above two NSCs knowing fully well that you have
availed loan of Rs. 16,000/- against the said original NSCs. thereby jeopardizing the Banks interest in this regard.
Moreover, you have neither paid single monthly installment as per terms of sanction which were accepted by you
nor did you repay the loan a amount even after discharging/encashing of NSCs upon their maturity. The balance in
your NSC loan account is Rs.23,863.00 as on date.
You are, therefore, charged for committing Gross Misconduct of "doing acts prejudicial to the interest of
the Bank involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss" under clause 5(j) of MOS dated 10.4.2002.”
To prove the charge levelled against the workman, Respondent has examined in evidence MW1, and this
witness states in his chief affidavit that the workman was charged for the misconduct of encashing two NSCs,
out of three offered by him as security to the bank for availing loan i.e., NSC No.16DD285218 for Rs.5000/-
and NSC No.09EE355454 for Rs.10000/-. Further, MW1 stated that workman did not pay even single
installment towards repayment of the loan as undertaken by him. MW1 has also proved the documents
2520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
produced in evidence against the workman pertaining to charge levelled against him. MW1 in his sworn
testimony has exhibited documents, which are as follows:-Ex.M1 charge sheet, Ex.M2 corrigendum dated
4.3.2004 to the charge sheet Ex.M3 letter dated 6.11.2004 addressed to the Enquiry Officer by the
Disciplinary Authority for adjournment of enquiry, Ex.M4 letter dated 7.6.2005 addressed to the Petitioner
informing him about enquiry proceeding, Ex.M5 is the list of documents and witnesses submitted to the
Enquiry Officer, Ex.M6 is the certificate relating to tenure of Petitioner at Secunderabad branch,Ex.M7 is
the loan application dated 3.7.1999 submitted by Petitioner, Ex.M8 is the letter regarding sanction of loan to
Petitioner dated 3.7.1999, Ex.M9 is the letter dated 3.7.1999 of WW1 regarding his acknowledgement to the
sanction letter duly agreeing all terms and conditions. Document Ex.M10 contains (a) letter from WW1
waiving presentment of pronote, (b) Demand promissory note executed by WW1 in respect of the loan of
Rs.16000/- sanctioned to him, (c) receipt executed by WW1 confirming the receipt of loan amount of
Rs.16000/-. Further, Ex.M11 is the loan agreement dt.3.7.1999, Ex.M12 is the office copy of the letter dated
3.7.1999 addressed by the branch to HPO: Secunderabad, Ex.M13 is the letter dated 9.6.2000 addressed to
WW1 informing him about loss of NSCs, Ex.M14 is the letter dated 10.6.2000 of workman to the bank in
response to the bank’s letter, requesting the bank to arrange for duplicate NSCs, Ex.M15 is the letter dated
4.3.2003 of Post Office to the Bank informing about the NSCs encashment etc., Ex.M16 is the statement of
loan account of workman showing “no payments” during 3.7.1999 to 31.1.2004. Ex.M17 is the letter dated
23.5.2003 of workman addressed to the Bank informing that Maturity amounts of his three NSCs were not
credited to his account, Ex.M18 is the letter of Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy to the Bank informing about three
NSCs, Ex.M19 is the NSC No.285218, Ex.M20 is the Photostat copy of NSC No.355454, Ex.M21 is the
written brief dated 30.6.2005 submitted by MW1 to the Enquiry Officer.
8.
Witness MW1 was cross examined by the Petitioner counsel wherein he states that, “an application
requesting to avail a loan against NSCs, preferably in the name of the applicant is submitted to the bank after
scrutiny of the application and the eligibility of the applicant, the NSCs are required to be sent to the post office for
creating bank’s charge on the said NSCs. However, in case of its own trusted employees the condition of creating
charge on the NSCs is not insisted upon. Looking to the urgency of the applicant, employee loan is given without
creating the charge on the NSCs. In case, the charge is already created on the NSCs signature of the owner is not
necessary in the reverse side of the NSCs.” Further, witness states that, “Loan was sanctioned on 3rd July, 1999
against the application on the same date.” Witness further states that, “The Manager of the Branch is the custodian
of the NSCs in case of availing loan.”
Further, MW1 stated that as per documents produced in the enquiry Sri Prabhakar Reddy, Daftry got encashed
NSCs along with authorization letter of Mr. Beedu Ramesh and handed over the entire money to Mr. Beedu
Ramesh. The denomination of the NSCs are RS.5,000/-, 1,000/- and 500/- as per Ex.M18. Further, witness states
that, he has not collected the authorization letter of Mr. Beedu Ramesh which has been handed over to Daftry Sri
Prabhakar Reddy. Further, MW1 states that from the available documents he is unable to say whether Mr.
Prabhakar Reddy was on duty on the date of encashment of NSCs or not. The bank has taken effort to obtain the
duplicates of NSCs. MW1 states that NSC in respect of Rs.5000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- are encashed on
30.4.2002 as per Ex.M18. Further, MW1 admitted that there is no acknowledgement in the bank record to say
whether NSCs were handed over to the employee.
9.
Thus, from the aforesaid statement of MW1 it is established that on the application of the workman, bank
has sanctioned the loan of Rs.16000/- to him and workman has pledged the NSCs No.295218, 355454 and 853413
to bank in the guarantee of loan taken by him.
10.
Further, Witness MW2 Sri N. Prabhakar Reddy has field his affidavit of chief statement wherein he has
stated that he joined the bank in 1985 as a peon at Secunderabad branch and worked there upto 1999. Mr. Beedu
Ramesh was also working at the said branch during his tenure and Mr. Ramesh was General Secretary of Allahabad
Bank Employees Union and was known to him and he was also member of the Employees Union and there were
frequent interactions between them besides having worked as colleagues at Secunderabad branch. Further, MW2
states, “Mr. Beedu Ramesh gave me 3 NSCs with the denominations of Rs.5000/-, 1000/- and 500/- along with an
authorization letter addressed to the Post Office authorizing me to collect the proceeds of the said NSCs.
Mr. Beedu Ramesh certified my signature on the said authorization letter and handed over to me the NSCs on
29.4.2002. I collected the amounts from the Post Office, Secunderabad on 30.4.2002 and paid the amount to Mr.
Beedu Ramesh. Later on I came to know that Mr. Beedu Ramesh had already taken a loan from the bank against
NSC for Rs.5000/- and therefore, in that context, I gave a letter to the bank.” The statement of MW2 goes to show
that Mr. Beedu Ramesh gave him three NSCs of denomination, Rs.5000/-, 1000/- and 500/- along with authorization
letter, authorizing him to collect the proceeds of said NSCs. MW2 has stated that, Mr. Beedu Ramesh has certified
his signature on the said authorization letter and handed over to him on 29.4.2002. Further MW2 testifies that he
collected the amount from the Post office on 30.4.2002 and gave the amount of encashed NSCs to Mr. Beedu
Ramesh. Thus, from the evidence of MW2, Ex.M18, M19/1 and M19/2 have been proved. The perusal of the
document Ex.M18 would reveal that MW2 had written a letter to Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Regional Office,
Hyderabad and contents of this letter are being reproduced below:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2521
1. On 29/04/2002 Sri B.Ramesh gave me three H.S.Cs Rs.5000/-(the said NSC), Rs.1000/- & Rs.500- duly
discharged by the holder Sri B.Ramesh along with the authorization letter addressed to the Postal
Department asking me to collect the proceeds on his behalf after due authorization.
2. I have submitted all the N.S.Cs in the Post Office on 30/04/2002 along with authorization letter in which
he has certified my signature.
3. After collecting the proceeds from Post Office, I have handed over the entire money to Sri B.Ramesh.”
Perusal of Ex.M18 and M19 would reveal that the NSCs pledged by the workman to the Bank have been encashed
by the workman through MW2 on 30.4.2002 by giving the authorization letter to MW2. Thus, from the statement
of this witness the documents Ex.M18 and M19 has been proved. It is utter surprising that workman did not cross
examine MW2 regarding contents of Ex.M18. Therefore, the statement of the MW2 regarding contents of Ex.M18
that on 29.4.2002 workman Mr. Beedu Ramesh gave him 3 NSCs along with the authorization letter addressed to
the Postal Department asking him to collect the proceeds on his behalf after due authorization and all the NSCs were
submitted by him in the Post office on 30.4.2002 along with authorization in which Mr. Beedu Ramesh, workman
has certified/attested his signature, remained unrebutted. Further, MW2 was also not cross examined regarding
contents of Ex.M18 that MW2 after collecting the proceeds from the Post office, he handed over the entire
amount to Mr. Beedu Ramesh. Thus, the statement of MW2 in this context remained intact. Further, Ex.M15 goes
to show that a letter dated 4.9.2003 was written by Post Master, D/o Posts, India to the Senior Manager, Allahabad
Bank, Minerva Complex, in reference to the issuance of duplicate NSCs issued by the office in the name of Mr.
Beedu Ramesh. The Post Master in the said letter has mentioned that certificate Nos.1) 16DD285218 and 2)
09EE355454 has been discharged by the investor Mr. Beedu Ramesh 1) on 30.4.2002 and 2) on 28.1.2003. It is
also mentioned in that letter that certificates were not pledged to the bank as per record. Thus, document Ex.M15
also corroborate the charge against the workman that he has encashed the NSCs which have been pledged by him
to the bank against the loan taken by him. It is note worthy to mention here that in case of pledge of NSC in term
of loan, it becomes property of the bank until loan has been repaid by the customer. But in this case worker did not
repay the loan amount to the bank
11.
Respondent counsel has contended that since the workman was employee of the bank and that his loan
application was accepted by the bank on the same day and the amount was released and the workman has pledged
three NSCs, details of which mentioned in the charge sheet, in favour of the bank. But these NSCs were missing
from the bank and the workman taking advantage of the trust of the Respondent bank Management has taken away
from the bank without lawful authority and got them encashed. Further Respondent contended that since the NSCs
could have been encashed by the investor only whose name bears in the NSCs and without identification of the
investor, the Post Office could not have encashed the matured NSCs. The possibility of removing the alleged NSCs
from the bank’s custody by any other person is ruled out as nobody could have access to the record of the bank
except the workman. As far as the possibility of the stealing of the said NSCs from the bank by the MW2, Daftry
is also ruled out because he has examined himself on oath in this matter and stated that the workman had given the
NSCs with authorization letter to him on 29.4.2002 for encashment from the post office. If MW2 would have
removed these NSCs from the bank then why workman did not initiate any action against him at the union level by
expelling him from the membership. Further, workman never lodged any complaint to the bank to suspend Mr. N.
Prabhakar Reddy, Daftry for fraudulently encashing his pledged NSCs and to initiate disciplinary action against
Mr. Prabhakar Reddy. Further, Respondent contended that workman did not file any FIR against Mr. Prabhakar
Reddy for illegal encashment of his NSCs or requesting Police to investigate for the stolen NSCs. Rather the
workman did not give any letter to the bank stating that he never gave any authorization letter to the Daftry to get
NSCs encashed. As the Bank informed workman vide letter dated 9.6.2000 to him about missing of NSCs from
bank, but the workman kept silent about it. Rather he did not moved to the Post Office immediately to report
the matter to the Post Office about the theft/ loss of the pledged NSCs from the bank. The conduct of the workman
in this matter remaining silent even on getting the information about missing of his pledged NSCs from bank and
showing reluctant conduct for not taking any action against the defendant is quite unnatural conduct and it
delineates that the workman had the knowledge of whereabouts of said NSCs. Further, on the NSCs, there is a
clear note to the effect that the holder is advised to keep a note of Sl.No. and date of issue of this certificate and to
notify immediately the Post Office at which the certificate is registered in the event of loss of certificate. In the
present matter workman never made such attempt to intimate the concerned post office about the loss of said NSCs.
This unnatural conduct of the workman goes to show that he was having the knowledge of whereabouts of the
pledged NSCs and on its maturity he himself got encashed NSCs through the MW2, Daftry of the bank. Workman
never stated in his evidence that he did not give any authorization letter to Mr. N.Prabhakar Reddy, Daftry for
encashment of the NSCs. Even he did not dare to cross examine MW2 on document Ex.M18. Thus on the basis of
careful scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, it is clearly established that the workman
has taken away his pledged NSCs from the bank custody taking advantage of trust in him by bank since he was the
employee and got encashed from the Post Office through MW2 on 30.4.2002. Further, testimony of MW2 is found
reliable and trustworthy to this effect. The workman failed to shake the credibility of testimony of witness MW2.
Therefore, in view of fore gone discussion I find force in the contention of the Respondent that workman has taken
2522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
away the pledged NSC from the custody of the bank unauthorizedly and got encashed on 30.4.2022 from post
office.
12.
On the other hand Petitioner has filed affidavit in chief as WW1 and he has reiterated the plea taken by
him in his claim statement. In cross examination WW1 states that, Ex.M18 is a fake letter as no date has been
mentioned nor the details of NSCs were mentioned and author of the letter was not produced for which caused
prejudice to him. Further, witness admits that Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy who was the Daftry of the Bank was the
author of this letter, but he do not know whether Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy issued the said letter WW1 state that he
and Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy worked together at Sarojani Devi Road branch, Minerva Complex. Further, witness
admits that, he has borrowed a loan of Rs.16000/- from the bank pledging three NSCs amounting to Rs.5000/-,
Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/-. Post Office is very close to the branch. Further he admits that two of the NSCs have
been encashed by somebody as he understood. WW1 states that, as per Ex.M19/1 NSC for Rs.5000/- maturing on
23.3.2002 was encashed on 30.4.2002 and an amount of Rs.10075/- was received by the person who encashed it.
Further WW1 states that , the signature of Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy is appearing on the back side of the above NSC
for having received the amount. WW1 states that, NSC for Rs.10000/- maturing on 16.1.2003 was encashed on
28.1.2003 and the person who encashed it received an amount of Rs.20,150/-.
13.
Thus, from the above statement of WW1 it is established and proved that the NSCs were pledged by the
workman in security of loan taken by him from the bank and the same has been encashed on 30.4.2002 from the
Post Office. WW1 has admitted in his cross examination that, “I have not intimated the postal authorities about the
missing of the three NSCs as a caution given to the investors in the NSCs.” But the witness adds that, when the
NSCs had been pledged, it were the documents of the bank for which reason I had not intimated the postal
authorities. WW1 has admitted that on 3.7.1999 I had availed the loan and on the same day he had given the loan
application. He states that agreement on the same date it is not possible to sanction the loan. It is the option of the
Manager of the Bank. For staff members generally, the loan is sanctioned and released on the same date even
before the registration of the NSCs with the postal authorities. Perhaps for the reason that the bank interest in the
three NSCs was not got registered with the postal authorities, their fraudulent payment could have happened.
Further, WW1 adds that, he do not know whether the bank’s interest against the NSCs was got registered in the post
office.” Further, witness states, “It is not correct to say that NSC certificates were given to me for getting the
bank’s interest noted in the Post office. The witness adds, since he is not the subordinate staff of the branch, it was
not done by me. WW1 states that he do not remember if N. Prabhakar Reddy, has given a letter Ex.M18 to the
bank during the course of enquiry.” Further, witness WW1 states that, “I did not talk to N. Prabhakar Reddy, about
the letter Ex.M18. I did not talk to him, on this letter even after the letter was handed over to me during enquiry.”
Witness admits that, he did not file any criminal complaint against N. Prabhakar Reddy for having encashed those
NSCs which belong to the bank which had been pledged by me. He never told the bank for taking any action
against N. Prabhakar Reddy, since it is the duty of the bank to take action being the custodian of the document.”
Further, witness states, “I admit that the bank had a written letter to the postal authorities as well as to the police the
three NSCs pledged by me were missing in transit when they were sent to the post office.” Further, witness also
states, “It is true that I have cross examined Management witness through his defence counsel by putting 132
questions over 4 days. I can not say now, whether I have cross examined the Management witness as regards
Ex.M18.”
14.
Thus, from the above statement of the witness WW1, it reflects that the conduct of the workman of not
initiating any action against erring staff even after being intimated about the missing of NSCs by the bank was
quite unnatural. As a man of ordinary prudence natural conduct of the workman would be in such circumstances
that immediately he might have rushed to the Post Office to give notice to the Post Master about missing NSCs
and direct to stop any encashment of these NSCs by any other unauthorized persons. But his conduct reflects
that he did not make any such attempt to intimate about loss of NSCs to Post office. Such unnatural conduct of
workman would indicate only one irresistible conclusion that the workman had knowledge of the whereabouts of
these NSCs and on maturity he got the NSCs encashed through witness MW2, MR. N. Prabhakar Reddy who
happens to be posted with him as Daftry in the bank.
15.
Thus, the charge levelled against the workman for committing Gross Misconduct of “doing acts prejudicial
to the interest of the Bank involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss” under clause 5(j) of MOS dated
10.4.2002, stands proved against him on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the Respondent
on record.
16.
Workman has taken the plea that Enquiry Officer has found him guilty of the charge on the basis of
inadmissible evidence. In this context it would be pertinent to mention here that in the enquiry proceeding the strict
relief of Evidence Act is not applicable. In order to prove misconduct of an employee in the enquiry only principle
of probability of preponderance is followed. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Heem Singh, Civil Appeal No.3340/2020, dated 29.10.2001 Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary Enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level
of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2523
charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary
findings in a disciplinary Enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do
so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust
common sense without which the judges’ craft is in vain.”
Further, in case of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 SCC 491, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“4. It is well settled that in a domestic Enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There
is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.” Further, it is held, “The simple
point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular
court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed
in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any
evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law
apparent on the record.”
17.
Perusal of the record goes to reveal that it is not the case of no evidence. There is ample evidence on
record in support of charge levelled against workman and Enquiry Officer has rightly found the workman guilty
on the basis of appreciation of evidence available on record. Thus, I don’t find any force in this plea taken by
workman.
18.
Further, Appellant has taken the plea that Disciplinary Authority did not pass any speaking order but
merely agreed with Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment of withdrawal of special Allowance to him on the
basis of preview finding of Enquiry Officer.. it is also submitted that Appellate Authority also disposed of the
appeal without considering the submissions made by him. As regard, question of interference by Tribunal in the
finding of the Enquiry Officer, in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principle in the case of State
of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], it was opined that the Industrial Courts
or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon by the Respondent
stating : -
"It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial
review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked
only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the
quantum of punishment unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience."
In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022 LLR page
126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have 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.”
19.
As regard plea of the workman that the Respondent Management has inflicted the severe punishment of
withdrawing Special Allowance w.e.f. 7.1.2006, granted to him i.e., which is disproportionate to the charge
levelled against him. Perused the record. The charge of gross misconduct has been held proved against the
workman. Disciplinary Authority on careful scrutiny of enquiry report has concurred with the finding of Enquiry
Officer and taking a lenient view in the facts and circumstances of case, has imposed punishment of withdrawal of
Special Allowance to the workman. Thus, it can not be said that said punishment imposed upon him is
disproportionate in any manner. Further, workman had admitted that he did not pay any installment of the loan
repayment on due time. Thus, due to this conduct of the workman, bank also suffered the loss.
20.
Therefore, on the basis of foregone discussion and law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the punishment of withdrawal of special allowance to the
workman has been imposed for the misconduct committed by workman and Disciplinary Authority has taken
lenient view against the workman while imposing the said punishment. Thus, I find no force in the argument of the
workman. Therefore, the action of Respondent in imposing the punishment of withdrawal of Special Allowance
is held justified.
Thus, Point No.I is decided accordingly.
21.
Point No.II: In view of the finding given in Point No. I the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and
this petition is found to be baseless, hence, liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, Point No.II is decided accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and finding arrived at Points No.I & II, the action of the Respondent
Management of M/s. Andhra Bank in awarding punishment of withdrawal of special allowance to workman
2524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri Beedu Ramesh, Special Assistant is held proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for. Therefore, the claim of the workman is dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 9th day of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Beedu Ramesh
MW1: Sri Manohar Jamandas Gaba
MW2: Sri N. Prabhakar Reddy
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of charge sheet dt. 9.2.2004
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of letter from Enquiry Officer dt.27.10.2004
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of representation to the Disciplinary Authority dt.6.11.2004
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of lr. to D.A. to E.O dt.6.11.2004
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of proceedings of domestic enquiry dt.29.6.2005
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of enquiry report dt.19.7.2005
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of order in WP No.22446/2005
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of submissions to Disciplinary Authority dt. 25.11.2005
Ex.W10 :
Photostat copy of fresh show cause notice dt.22.12.2005
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of personal hearing dt.6.1.2006
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of final order dt. 7.1.2006
Ex.W13:
Photostat copy of appeal dated 22.2.2006
Ex.W14:
Photostat copy of lr. reg. non disposal of appeal dt.26.4.2006
Ex.W15:
Photostat copy of lr. reg. disposal of appeal
Ex.W16:
Photostat copy of representation to ALC(C) by Petitioner dt.4.5.2006
Ex.W17:
Photostat copy of counter to the representation dt.20.7.2006
Ex.W18:
Photostat copy of rejoinder dt. 22.8.2006
Ex.W19:
Photostat copy of comments filed by bank dt. 5.10.2006
Ex.W20:
Photostat copy of minutes of conciliation dt.20.11.2006
Ex.W21:
Photostat copy of failure report dt.30.11.2006
Ex.W22:
Photostat copy of reference by Government of India dt.7.6.2007
Ex.W23:
Photostat copy of notice from CGIT cum Labour Court dt.9.7.2007
Ex.W24:
Photostat copy of NSCs No.16DD285218
Ex.W25:
Photostat copy of NSCs No.09EE355454
Ex.W26:
Photostat copy of application for loan dt.3.7.1999
Ex.W27:
Photostat copy of banks letter to Post office dt.3.7.1999
Ex.W28:
Photostat copy of Petitioner letter dt.10.6.2000
Ex.W29:
Photostat copy of Petitioner letter dt.23.5.2003
Ex.W30:
Photostat copy of reply to show cause notice dt.3.6.2003
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2525
Ex.W31:
Photostat copy of Police complaint dt. 25.10.2002
Ex.W32:
Photostat copy of lr. from Police dt.18.2.2003
Ex.W33:
Photostat copy of Sastry Award
Ex.W34:
Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement dt.10.4.2002
Ex.W35:
Photostat copy of copies statements
Ex.W36:
Photostat copy of loan ledger A/c upto Sept’99
Ex.W37:
Photostat copy of defence Exhibits-12 dt.29.6.2005
Ex.W38:
Photostat copy of judgement copy 14.9.2007
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1:
Photostat copy of charge sheet dt. 9.2.2004
Ex.M2:
Photostat copy of corrigendum dt. 4.3.2004 to the charge sheet
Ex.M3:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 6.11.2004 addressed to the Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority
for adjournment of enquiry
Ex.M4:
Photostat copy of lr.dt. 7.6.2005 to the Petitioner informing him about enquiry proceeding
Ex.M5:
Photostat copy of list of documents and witnesses submitted to the Enquiry Officer
Ex.M6:
Photostat copy of certificate relating to tenure of Petitioner at Secunderabad branch
Ex.M7 :
Photostat copy of loan application dt.3.7.1999 submitted by Petitioner
Ex.M8:
Photostat copy of lr. reg. sanction of loan to Petitioner dt. 3.7.1999
Ex.M9:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 3.7.1999 of WW1 reg. his acknowledgement to the sanction letter duly
agreeing all terms and conditions
Ex.M10:
Photostat copy of a) lr. from WW1 waiving presentment of pronote
b) Demand promissory note executed by WW1 in r/o the loan of Rs.16000/-
sanctioned to him
c) receipt executed by WW1 confirming the receipt of loan amount of
Rs.16000/-
Ex.M11:
Photostat copy of loan agreement dt.3.7.1999
Ex.M12:
Office copy of the lr. Dt.3.7.1999 addressed by the branch to HPO: Secunderabad
Ex.M13:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 9.6.2000 to WW1 informing loss of NSCs
Ex.M14:
Photostat copy of lr. dt. 10.6.2000 of WW1 to the bank in response to the bank’s letter, requesting
the bank to arrange for duplicate NSCs
Ex.M15:
Photostat copy of lr. dated 4.3.2003 of Post Office to the Bank informing about the NSCs etc..
Ex.M16:
Photostat copy of statement of loan account of WW1 showing “no payments” during 3.7.1999 to
31.1.2004
Ex.M17
Photostat copy of lr dt. 23.5.2003 of WW1 to the Bank informing that Maturity amounts of his 3
NSCs were not credited to his account
Ex.M18:
Photostat copy of lr. of Mr. N. Prabhakar Reddy to the Bank informing about 3 NSCs
Ex.M19:
Photostat copy of NSC No.285218
Ex.M20:
Photostat copy of NSC No.355454
Ex.M21:
Photostat copy of written brief dt. 30.6.2005 submitted by MW1 to the Enquiry Officer
Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1145.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; हैदराबाद ds iapkV (16/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[l- ,y-39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-20]
सलोनी] उृ जनिेिक
2526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B-II)-20]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 26th day of April, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.16/2012
Between:
Sri R.Narsimhulu,
S/o R. Chandraiah,
R/o H.No.1-2-606/12,
Banda Maisamma Nagar,
Near Indira Park, Hyderabad.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office,
Surabhi Complex, Bank Street,
Hyderabad.
2.
The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Uppal Branch, Uppal,
Hyderabad.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
Sri M.V.L.Narsaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, Advocate
A W A R D
Sri R. Narasimhulu, who worked as Messenger (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 Overseas Bank
against them oral termination order in the month of November, 2010 and 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.
2.
On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient
opportunity for cross examination of WW1, Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. In
the absence of cross examination of WW1, the evidence of witness can not be read in support of claim. Since, the
claim is not substantiated by evidence, therefore, a ‘No claim’ award is passed for want of evidence.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, corrected and signed by me on this the
26th day of April, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2527
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1146.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससव
एयरृोटव अ ॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; मेससव मोिनस इंटरप्राइिेि; मेससव जविाल इंटरप्राइिेि; मेससव आनंि इंटरप्राइिेि के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री मनोि कुमार राय के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-222/2017) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज
िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-82]
दिलीृ कुमार, अृर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 222/2017) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to M/s Airport Authority of India; M/s Mohans Enterprises; M/s Vishal Enterprises; M/s
Anand Enterprises and Shri Manoj Kumar Rai which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 12.06.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-82]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
DID No.222/2017
Shri Manoj Kumar Rai S/o Sh. Babu Ram Rai,
Through Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Trade Union (regd.),
D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi
Claimant…
Versus
1.
The Director,
M/s Airport Authority of India,
Safdarjung Airport, Shree Arvindo Marg,
New Delhi-110003.
2.
Malikan, M/s Mohans Enterprises
242, Pocket-D, J&K Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi-110095.
3.
Malikan, M/s Vishal Enterprises
71, Kamla Nagar,
New Delhi-110007.
2528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
Malikan, M/s Anand Enterprises
15/32, East of Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
Management…
AWARD
1.
This is an application Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his
termination from the service on 01.03.2017 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be
reinstated with full back wages, it is the case of the applicant/workman that he has been working with the
management. He has not been provided any legal facilities. When the workman went to join his job he was illegally
terminated form his service on 01.03.2017 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any domestic
enquiry by the management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed the
present claim petition.
2.
Management No.2&3 is not appearing since long therefore they are proceeded ex-parte. However, the
management no.1&4 has appeared and filed the written statement. Thereafter, rejoinder filed by the claimant and
issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on 18.05.2018. After that, claimant evidence also not
filed. Despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant have not appeared to substantiate his claim.
3.
Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute
award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the
appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1147.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार दिल्ली
इंटरनेिनल एयरृोटव प्राइवेट जलजमटेड (डायल); ज क िेक फजक्री (टीटीएसएफ) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री ृंकि
के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.-21/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
12.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड-16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-81]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL); Thick Shake Factory (TTSF) and Shri Pankaj which was
received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.06.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR(M)-81]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 21/2020
Sh. Pankaj, Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o KG-1, 1535, Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2529
VERSUS
1. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (DIAL),
IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037.
2. The Thick Shake Factory (TTSF),
Delhi International Airport, New Udaan Bhawan,
Opp. Terminal-III, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037.
AWARD
This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). Claimant
had stated in their claim statement that he had been working with the respondent-2 since 25.03.2019 at the post of
Senior Operation Manager at a monthly salary of Rs. 59,000/- Per month. He was posted at Delhi Airport Terminal
1 by the mangagement-2 and continued working there. He had been doing his work with diligently and never given
any chance of complaint to the managements. In July 2019, the management-2 started pressuring him to resign from
job. Management had stopped his salary of August 2019 when he asked he was informed that there were some
minor financial issues which would be sorted out and he would be paid his salary. However, he was not paid the
salary even in the next month. Even his expenses towards Travelling allowance from April 2019 to October 2019
amounting to Rs. 30,000/- were not paid to him. Vide letter dated 20.10.2019 he was terminated without any reason
and without paying his salary for three months from August to October 2019. He has orally requested to them to
take him on duty with his back wages and other dues. However, request was turned down. He has gone to the
conciliation officer, but, no result was yielded. Hence he has filed the claim.
Both management-1 & 2 had appeared and filed the WS denying the averment made in the claim. They
submit that claim of the claimant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
On 29.03.2022, issues have been framed that is given below :-
1.
Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2.
Whether the claimant is a workman in terms of the provision of section 2 (s) of the I.D Act.
3.
Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management-2.
4.
To what relief of the claimant is entitled to.
Claimant is asked to prove his case. However, despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant has
not turned up to prove his claim. As the claimant has not turned up for proving his case, his claim stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required
under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG. Presiding Officer
Date: 30.04.2024
दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1148.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
सेलेबी एयरृोटव सर्ववसेस इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सेलेबी एम्प्लाइि यूजनयन के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.-62/2023) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा
12.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-11011/04/2023-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 62/2023) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to CELEBI Airport Services India Private Limited and CELEBI Employees Union which
was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.06.2024.
[No. L-11011/04/2023-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
2530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 62/2023
The General Secretary,
CELEBI Employees Union (Regd.)
BTR Bhawan, 13-A, Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi-110002
Claimant…
Versus
CELEBI Airport Services India Private Limited,
(Formerly CELEBI Ground Handling Private Limited)
IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037
Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-
11011/04/2023-IR(M) dated 22.02.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“1. Whether the action of the management of CELEBI Airport Services India Private Limited, New Delhi in
not inviting and holding discussion with the Celebi Employees Union, New Delhi on the charter of demands
dated 02.04.2018 (Annexed) and instead signing the settlement dated 01.04.2018 with a committee of
workmen is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what reliefs are the disputant Union entitled and what
directions, if any, are necessary in this regard?
2. If the above issue at S.No. 1 is answered in favour of disputant union. Then whether the demands as raised in
charter of demand dated 02.04.2018 (Annexed-A) are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief are disputant
union entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in this regard?”
3.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15
days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the
Tribunal.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the
postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal
services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact
that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away
from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not
interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause
against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. Let this
award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for
publication.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 14.05.2024
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1149.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
दिल्ली इंटरनेिनल एयरृोटव जलजमटेड; मेससव सेलेबी दिल्ली कागो मजनेिमेंट टर्मवनल प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससव बी. आर.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2531
ृावर कण्रोल एंड ऑटोमेिन सर्ववसेि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और एयरृोटव एम्प्लाइि यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंि
में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई दिल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-160/2017) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 12.06.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-11011/6/2017-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 160/2017) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Delhi International Airport Limited; M/s CELEBI Delhi Cargo Management
Terminal Private Limited; M/s B.R. Power Control & Automation Services and Airport Employees Union
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.06.2024.
[No. L-11011/6/2017-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1
ROOM NO.207, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.160/2017
Airport Employees Union,
BTR Bhawan, 13A Rouse Avenue,
New Delhi- 110002
Claimant…
Versus
M/s Delhi International Airport Ltd.,
New Udaan Bhawan, IGI Airport,
New Delhi-110037
M/s Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Terminal Pvt. Ltd.,
Room No. CE-05, 1st Floor, Impart Building-II,
International Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport
New Delhi-110037
M/s B.R. Power Control & Automation Services,
Plot No. 15, Krishna Nagar, Sector-25,
Faridabad-121004
Management…
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No-L-11011/6/2017 (IR(M)) dated 25.05.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section
10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management BR Power Control & Automation Services/DIAL/CELEBI DELHI
CARGO TERMINAL in not implementing charter of demands under id act 1947 of the workmen is illegal
and/or unjustified, if so, what relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this
respect?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file
statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within
2532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties
involved in the dispute. Claim statement filed, rebuttal written statement filed on behalf of the management no.
1,2&3.
3.
Thereafter, issues were framed. Case was listed for claimant evidence on 26.07.2019. After that, none
appeared on behalf of the claimant despite providing a number of opportunities neither filed claimant evidence or
appeared to substantiate his claim.
4.
Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute
award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the
appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Justice VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAVA (Retd.), Presiding Officer
Date: 14.05.2024
नई दिल्ली, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1150.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
iatkc uS”kuy बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ढ़ ds iapkV (267/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[l- ,y - 12012/06/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.267/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/06/2014- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.267/2013
Registered On: 20/03/2014
Sh. Amit, S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Village and Post Kharawar(Railway Road), District Rohtak (Haryana).
...........Workman
Versus
1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Rohtak.
2.The Manager, C.I.S. Bureau Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. Regional Office, 7 SatyaNiketan, First Floor, Moti Bagh-2,
New Delhi-110021.
AWARD
Passed On: 21.05.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/06/2014 (IR(B-II)) dated 06.03.2014, 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 management of (i) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office,
Rohtak (Haryana) and (ii) The Manager, C.I.S. Bureau Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office,
7 Satya Niketan, First Floor, Moti Bagh-2, New Delhi 110021 in terminating the services of Shri Tara
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िून 15, 2024/ज् येष् ठ 25, 1946
2533
Chand S/o Shri Lakhi Ram, Ex-Caretaker/ATM Security Guard w.e.f. 28.09.2012 is just and legal? What
relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for cross-examination of
management witness by workman but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel
for the management that workman is not turning up since long i.e. from 22.02.2023 and prayed for dismissal of the
present claim petition.
2.
Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true.
Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for cross-examination of management witness by
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.
3
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, 12 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1151.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
iatkc uS”kuy बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ढ़ ds iapkV (268/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[la- ,y - 12012/04/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II]
सलोनी , उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th June, 2024
S.O. 1151.—.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.268/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/04/2014- IR(B.II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.268/2013
Registered On: 28/04/2014
Sh. Tara Chand, S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram, R/o Village and P.O. Kharawar (Railway Road), District Rohtak (Haryana).
...........Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Rohtak.
2.
The Manager, C.I.S. Bureau Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. Regional Office, 7 Satya Niketan, First Floor, Moti
Bagh-2, New Delhi-110021.
........Management
AWARD
Passed On: 21.05.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/04/2014 (IR(B-II)) dated 06.03.2014, 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 management of (i) The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office,
Rohtak (Haryana) and (ii) The Manager, C.I.S. Bureau Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office, 7
Satya Niketan, First Floor, Moti Bagh-2, New Delhi 110021 in terminating the services of Shri Tara
2534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 15, 2024/JYAISHTHA 25, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Chand S/o Shri Lakhi Ram, Ex-Caretaker/ATM Security Guard w.e.f. 28.09.2012 is just and legal? What
relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for cross-examination of
management witness by workman but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel
for the management that workman is not turning up since long i.e. from 22.02.2023 and prayed for dismissal of the
present claim petition.
2.
Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true.
Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for cross-examination of management witness by
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.
3.
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.
GORAKHA
NATH
YADAVA
Digitally signed by
GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Date: 2024.07.01
11:26:36 +05'30'