4230 GI/2024
(3207)
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. 29]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 21—िुलाई 27, 2024, िजनवार/ आषाढ़ 30—श्रावण 5, 1946
No. 29]
NEW DELHI, JULY 21—JULY 27, 2024, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 30– SRAVANA 5, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2024
का.आ. 1428.—भारतीय ररिवव बैंक अजिजनयम, 1934 की िारा 8 की उप-िारा (4) के साथ परठत िारा 8
की उप-िारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री टी. रजब िंकर (िन् म
जतजथ 14.3.1963) को दिनांक 3.5.2024 से एक वषव की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो,
भारतीय ररिवव बैंक में उप-गवनवर के पि पर पुन: जनयुि करती िै।
[फा. सं. 1/1/2011-बीओ-I (खंड-II)]
जविय िंकर जतवारी, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-31072024-255938
CG-DL-W-31072024-255938
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-31072024-255938
CG-DL-W-31072024-255938
3208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 24th April, 2024
S.O. 1428.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of The Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934, read with sub-section (4) of section 8 thereof, the Central Government hereby re-appoints
Shri T. Rabi Sankar (DoB: 14.3.1963) as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period of one year with effect
from 03.05.2024, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 1/1/2011-BO.I (Vol.-II)]
VIJAY SHANKAR TIWARI, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1429.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिवन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा
(3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, श्री मुकेि कुमार बंसल के स्ट्थान पर
डॉ. एम. पी. तजन्गराला (अपर सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और
अगले आिेिों तक, बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा के बोडव में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]
संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2024
S.O. 1429.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Dr M P
Tangirala (Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as
Director on the Board of Bank of Baroda, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Mukesh Kumar
Bansal.
[F. No. 6/2(i)/2022-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1430.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिवन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा
(3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, डॉ. एम. पी. तजन्गराला के स्ट्थान पर
डॉ. आलोक पाण्डे (अपर सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जनवेि और लोक पररसंपजत्त प्रबंिन जवभाग) को तत्काल
प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक, इंजडयन बैंक के बोडव में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. 6/2(ii)/2022-बीओ-I]
संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2024
S.O. 1430.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Dr Alok
Pande (Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Investment and Public Asset
Management) as Director on the Board of Indian Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Dr M P
Tangirala.
[F. No. 6/2(ii)/2022-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3209
नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1431.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिवन और अंतरण) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा
(3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रित् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतिद्वारा, डॉ. संिय कुमार के स्ट्थान पर श्री
सुिीर श्याम (आर्थवक सलािकार, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले
आिेिों तक, यूको बैंक के बोडव में जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. 6/2(iii)/2022-बीओ-I]
संिय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2024
S.O. 1431.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates
Shri Sudhir Shyam (Economic Advisor, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services)
as Director on the Board of UCO Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Dr Sanjay Kumar.
[F. No. 6/2(iii)/2022-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
जविेि मन्त्रालय
(सी. पी. वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1432.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड
(क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एति् द्वारा,सरकार भारत के िूतावास, िूबा (िजक्षण सूडान) मेेँ श्री सुजमत कुमार, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी, को
िुलाई 22, 2024 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकृत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी-4330/01/2024(24)]
एस. आर. एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-l)
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2024
S.O. 1432.—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 Sumit Kumar,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Juba (South Sudan), to perform the
consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from July 22, 2024.
[F. No.T.4330/01/2024(24)]
S. R. H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)
कार्मवक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय
(कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 16 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1433.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा [संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग] जनयमावली, 1976 (यथा
संिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में कार्मवक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग के
अिीनस्ट् थ कायावलय, कमवचारी चयन आयोग (मु.) के अिीन क्षेत्रीय कायावलय, कमवचारी चयन आयोग (उ.पू.क्षे.), गुवािाटी,
जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमवचाररयों ने हिंिी भाषा का कायवसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/1/2022-हिंिी]
एस. डी. िमाव, संयुक् त सजचव
3210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2024
S.O. 1433.—Central Government, in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of official languages [Use for
official purpose of union] Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011), hereby notifies Regional office, Staff
Selection Commission (NER), Guwahati an office under the Staff Selection Commission (Hqrs.), a subordinate
office of Department of Personnel and Training, whose more than 80 percent staff has acquired working knowledge
of Hindi language.
[F. No. E-11017/1/2022-Hindi]
S. D. SHARMA, Jt. Secy.
वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय
(वाजणज्य जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 12 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1434.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का
22) की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ परठत जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के
उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार में वाजणज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय की अजिसूचनाओं
सं॰का.आ. 730, सं॰का.आ. 731, सं॰का.आ. 732 दिनांक 15 जसतम्बर 2021 एवं सं॰का.आ. 1627 दिनांक 10 अक्टूबर,
2023 भारत के रािपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii) में प्रकाजित में जनम्नजलजखत संिोिन करती िै, अथावत्:-
उि अजिसूचनाओं में-
(i) " थेरेप्यूरटक्स केजमकल ररसचव कॉरपोरेिन" िब्िों के स्ट्थान पर "टीसीआरसी क्वाजलटी कंरोल एलएलपी" िब्ि
प्रजतस्ट्थाजपत दकये िाएंगे।
[फा. सं. के-16014/7/2021 - जनयावत जनरीक्षण]
जसद्धाथव मिािन, संयुक् त सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2024
S.O. 1434.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964,
the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, vide numbers S.O. 730, S.O. 731, S.O. 732 dated 15th September, 2021 and S.O. 1627 dated 10th October,
2023 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), namely:-
In the said notifications-
(i) For the words “Therapeutics Chemical Research Corporation”, the words “TCRC Quality Controls LLP” shall be
substituted.
[F. No. K-16014/7/2021-Export Inspection]
SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 16 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1435.—केन्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)
की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ परठत जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के
उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससव जमत्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िाउहसंग बोडव कॉलोनी,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3211
एचबी - 44, मिुबन, पारािीप, जिला िगतहसंिपुर, ओजडिा - 754142, (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण किा
िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषव की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की
िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में जनर्िवष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की
अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975,तथा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3978 के तित प्रकाजित
अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-।, अथावत, ल़ौि अयस्ट्क, मैंगनीि अयस्ट्क,
फेरोमैंगनीि स्ट्लैग सजित फेरोमैंगनीि और समूि-II, अथावत, मैंगनीि डाइऑक्साइड, क्रोम कंसन्रेट सजित क्रोम अयस्ट्क, के
जनयावत से पूवव जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन पारािीप पत्तन, िामरा पत्तन तथा गोपालपुर पत्तन में उि खजनि और अयस्ट्क
के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथावत् :
(i) यि अजभकरण, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 खजनि और अयस्ट्क तथा
समूि-।। का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िाेँच करने के जलये जनयावत
जनरीक्षण पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयावप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान करेगी;
(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्िवष्ट अपने कायो का जनष्पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण
और गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयावत जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलजखत रूप में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. के-16014/5/2024 - जनयावत जनरीक्षण]
जसद्धाथव मिािन, संयुक् त सजचव
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2024
S.O. 1435.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s. Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Housing Board
Colony, HB – 44, Madhuban, Paradip, District Jagatsinghpur, Odisha - 754142, (hereinafter referred to as the said
agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official
Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferromanganese
including Ferromanganese slag and Group – II, namely, Manganese dioxide, Chrome Ore including Chrome
Concentrate, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978, dated
the 20th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Dhamra Port and
Gopalpur Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals
and Ores – Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II (Inspection) Rules,
1965;
(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing
from time to time.
[F. No. K-16014/5/2024-Export Inspection]
SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.
पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 24 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1436.—केंरीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खनीि पाइपलाइन (भूजम मे उपयोग के अजिकार के आिवन)
अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 2 केखंड (क) के अनुसरण में, तजमलनाडु राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर तक अजिजनयम
के अिीन, कोची सेलम पाइपलाइन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड(केएसपीपीएल ) की कोची-कोयम्बटूर- सेलम एलपीिी पाइपलाइन
के जलए, तजमलनाडु राज्य में सक्षम प्राजिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के जलए केएसपीपीएल ने प्रजतजनयुजि पर का आ
2178 (अ ) दिनांक14/06/2022 भारत के रािपत्र संख्या 2590 दिनांक14/06/2022 के अंतगवत अजिसूजचत सक्षम
प्राजिकारी श्री ऐ िे सेंजथल अरसन, जडप्टी कलक्टर, के स्ट्थान पर श्रीमती एस जवष्णुवर्िवनी, जडप्टी कलक्टर, जिनकी
जनयुजि नोडल अजिकारी कोची सेलम पाइपलाइन प्रोिेक्ट कोयम्बटूर िै, को प्राजिकृत करती िै।
3212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
यि अजिसूचना िारी िोने की तारीख से लागू िोगी।
[फा. सं. आर-12031/1/2021-ओआर-II/ई-39085]
िजि िेखर हसंि, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 24th July, 2024
S.O. 1436.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the petroleum and mineral pipelines (acquisition of
right of user in land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes Smt S. Vishnuvardhini,
Deputy Collector, in place of earlier notified competent authority Mr. A J Senthil Arasan, Deputy Collector Vide S.O.
No. 2718(E) dated 14/06/2022 published in Gazette of India No. 2590 dated 14/06/2022 on deputation to Kochi
Salem Pipeline Private Limited (KSPPL), who is appointed as Nodal Officer for Kochi Salem Pipeline Project
Coimbatore, to perform the functions of the Competent authority, in the state of Tamilnadu for Kochi Salem Pipeline
Private Limited's Kochi-Coimbatore-Salem LPG Pipeline under the said act.
2.
This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.
[F. No. R-12031/1/2021-OR-II/E-39085]
SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.
पृथ् वी जवज्ञान मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 23 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1437.—भारतीय अंटाकवरटक अजिजनयम, 2022 (वषव 2022 का 13) की िारा 30 की उप-िारा (1)
द्वारा प्रित्त िजि्यों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार उि अजिजनयम के प्राविानों के तित भारत में कतव्य
ों का
जनवविन करने एवं जनरीक्षण करने की िजियों का प्रयोग करने के जलए ड ा. अपणाव िुक्ला, वैज्ञाजनक, पृथ्वी जवज्ञान
मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली तथा डॉ. अजवनाि कुमार, वैज्ञाजनक, राष्ट्रीय ध्रुवीय एवं समुरी अनुसंिान केन्र, गोवा को एतद्द्वारा
जनरीक्षक नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. MoES/POLAR/IAA-2022/1/2024-PC 1]
मीना गोपीनाथ, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2024
S.O. 1437.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Indian Antarctic Act,
2022 (13 of 2022), the Central Government hereby designate Dr. Aparna Shukla, Scientist, Ministry of Earth Sciences, New
Delhi and Dr. Avinash Kumar, Scientist, National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research, Goa as Inspectors for
performing the duties and exercising the powers of inspections in India under the provisions of the said Act.
[F. No. MoES/POLAR/IAA-2022/1/2024-PC1]
MEENA GOPINATH, Under Secy.
श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1438.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार
प्रबंि जनिेिक, स्ट्कूटसव इंजडया जलजमटेड, सरोजिनी नगर, लखनऊ, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िररनायक
हसंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ पंचाट (संिभव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3213
संख्या 18/2012) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
27.06.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-42011/133/2011-आईआर (डीयू)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2024
S.O. 1438.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Managing Director, Scooters India Ltd., Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, and Shri Harinayak Singh, Worker,
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.06.2024.
[No. L-42011/133/2011-IR (DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No.18 of 2012
Ref. No. L-42011/133/2011-IR(DU) dated: 04.01.2012
BETWEEN
Shri Harinayak Singh, village – Natkur Post – Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow
AND
The Managing Director, Scooters India Ltd., Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.
AWARD
Sri V.K. Jaiswal - Counsel for the Applicant/Workman
Sri A.K. Singh & Sri Sharad Shukla- Counsel for the Respondent
On 04.01.2012 appropriate government by order no.L-42011/133/2011-IR (DU) has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal and accordingly the I.D. Case No. 18 of 2012 (Harinayak Singh M/s. Scooter India Ltd.) was
registered;:-
“Whether the action of the management of Scooters India Ltd., Lucknow in not considering the application
of workman Sri Harinayak Singh, Grade ‘C’ dated 03.12.1993 and voluntarily retiring him w.e.f. 31.12.1993
without paying entire pensionery benefits, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
Case of claimant:
On 26.3.2012 on behalf of workman, Statement of Claim filed stating therein the following averments :-
a) The applicant was appointed as semi skilled worker under the opposite party/employer on 20.11.1973
being fully eligible for the post and his Service No. is 1095 and he was initially granted Grade ‘C’. The
applicant/workman started performing his work and duties with all satisfaction of his all concerned.
b) All of sudden in the year 1993 a rumors was flown away in the campus of company that Manager of the
respondent is saying that the company is going to be windup within a very short period due to heavy
financial loss and as such employees may take his all service benefits as soon as possible from the
company otherwise company will not responsible for the same. Those employees who will seek his
voluntary retirement under the announced voluntary retirement scheme, they will call back in job/service
on requirement of work on seniority basis.
c) The applicant believing rumor on 30.11.1993 applied for his voluntary retirement with effect from
31.03.1994 under the voluntary retirement scheme dated 8.12.1988.
3214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
d) A circular dated 6.11.1993 was also circulated by the respondent stating therein that the voluntary
retirement scheme circulated vide circular dated 8.12.1988 will remain suspended with effect from
1.12.1993.
e) The applicant immediately on 03.12.1993 moved an application for withdrawing his voluntary
retirement, which was sought by him with effect from 31.03.1994, then he came to know that his
voluntary retirement has already been accepted by the management of opposite party on the same date
i.e. on which he moved an application on 30.11.1993.
f)
The management was fully aware with all things but voluntary retirement of the applicant was accepted
knowingly and with mal intention on the same date when the applicant submitted his VRS application
i.e. on 30.11.1993 only to oust him from the job, therefore the action of the respondent is quite bad in
law and unjust.
g) The applicant applied for voluntary retirement on 30.11.1993 w.e.f. 31.03.1994 but his voluntary
retirement was accepted by the respondent on the same date when he moved his application on
30.11.1993. The management is well known that the VRS circulated vide letter dated 8.12.1988 will
remain suspended w.e.f. 1.12.1993, therefore, action of the respondent in accepting his VRS w.e.f.
30.11.1993 instead of 31.03.1994 is fully illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
h) If the applicant’s voluntary retirement was not accepted w.e.f. 30.11.1993 i.e. on the date when he
moved his application for VRS, his application would be cancelled or rejected by the management of the
respondent as he submitted another application dated 03.12.1993 for withdrawing his voluntary
retirement and thus he would remain in job till attaining his retirement age from the job. In view of this
the respondent may be directed to pay entire salary and other service benefits to the applicant from the
date of his relieve till the date of his retirement.
i)
It is provided in the standing orders of the company that the pay will be revised on each 5 years of
employees which has not been done in the matter of the applicant before accepting his VRS. The
company is quietly running till date, therefore his voluntary retirement deserves to be quashed and the
respondent be directed to reinstate the applicant on the post with full salary benefits from the date of
relieve from the job till his date of retirement from the post and pay his entire due salary with 12%
interest to the applicant.
Case of respondent:
On 25.07.2012 the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent M/s. Scooters India Limited taking the
following preliminary objections :-
a) The matter of dispute does not constitute a valid industrial dispute, as the dispute has not been transformed
into an industrial dispute within the meaning of the terms as defined in Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
b) The Central Government has not taken facts in cognizance while making a reference to the Tribunal. The
reference is not based on the pleadings of the parties advanced at the conciliation stage, especially the
submissions of the respondent before the Conciliation Officer/Government have been completely ignored,
while making the reference for adjudication. No cause of action arose on the date as mentioned in reference
order as such also on his ground alone, the reference order is bad in the eyes of law.
c) The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has been amended vide Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act
No.24 of 2010) and period of limitation has been provided by virtue of Section 2A(3), which is quoted as
below:-
“2A(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or
Tribunal before expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
otherwise termination of services as specified in sub-section (1)”
d) A period of limitation has been provided i.e. three years from the alleged date of termination of services, but
the instant case has arisen after a period of 18 years which is liable to the dismissed on the ground of
limitation alone.
e) Even otherwise, the applicant has not raised industrial dispute within reasonable time. The applicant has
raised an industrial dispute regarding his acceptance of Voluntary Retirement very belatedly i.e. after elapse
of more than about 18 years. It is trite law as held by the Apex Court that the dispute must be raised within
reasonable period of time from the cause of action and where the industrial dispute is not raised within
reasonable period of time the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal should decline to grant any interim relief to
the workman.
f)
The Apex Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Versus K.P. Madhavankutty & others : 2000(84) FLR
673 SC, S.M. Niljakar Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka:2003(97) FLR 608 SC, Manager R.B.I. Vs.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3215
Gopinath Sharma : 2006 FLR (110) FLR 803 SC has already held that the dispute must be raised within
reasonable period of time from the cause of action and a dispute which is state could not be subject matter of
reference.
g) The present reference is highly belated, inasmuch as it is made after more than eighteen years from the
alleged date of cause of action. The instant delay caused prejudice to the respondent since the management
not presumed to preserve the relevant record for such a long period.
h) It is settled law of the land that the person who is approaching this Tribunal should come with clean hand but
in the instant matter, the applicant has concealed the actual material facts which are very necessary for the
purposes of the adjudication of present matter of dispute, if any, as such also the reference is not
maintainable before this Tribunal and accordingly deserves to be rejected.
i)
Earlier the applicant had raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of Section 2A of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act before the validly appointed conciliation officer. The conciliation officer on its turn called
upon the parties for hearing and after conducting the necessary proceedings, the aforementioned application
had been rejected by the competent authority.
j)
The applicant preferred a Writ Petition No. 2620 (SS) of 1999 (Rajendra Singh & another Vs. Scooters India
Limited & others) along with some other ex-employees of the Company before the Hon’ble High Court,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow challenging the order passed by the competent authority and the Hon’ble High
Court had been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid writ petition including bunch of writ petitions bearing
W.P.No.2146 (SS) of 2000, W.P.No.6654 (SS) of 1999, W.P. No.2620 (SS) of 2000, W.P. No.1625 (SS) of
2000, W.P. No.1745 (SS) of 2000, W.P. No.1644 (SS) of 2000, W.P. No.1635 (SS) of 2000 & W.P. No.1624
(SS) of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 8.2.2006 after holding that there is no dispute that the petitioners
themselves had approached the scheme and had accepted all the benefits and after accepting all the benefits,
after a lapse of long time, had tried to raise this dispute. Further the Hon’ble Court has held that the
Conciliation Officer, in these circumstances for sufficient reasons disallowed the application of the
petitioners.
k) A Review Petition No.76 of 2006 was also filed by the applicant which has also been dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow vide its judgment and order dated 13.5.2008. Thus it is
clear that the matter has already been adjudicated upon by the competent court of law and these facts have
not been disclosed by the applicant in their written statement, which amounts to concealment of facts and the
instant application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
l)
An identical situated employee had also preferred a Writ Petition No.1165(SS) of 1994:Jagdish Chandra
Nigam Versus M/s. Scooters India Limited before the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
challenging the action of the management in accepting the application for voluntary retirement, which has
been dismissed by means of detail judgment and order dated 9.1.1997.
m) Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9.1.1997, Special Appeal No.48 (SB) of 1997
was preferred before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and after
conducting the necessary proceedings, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court decided the
said special appeal by means of judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 and set aside the judgment and order
passed by the Single Judge to the extent that in case of the appellant/petitioner deposits the entire amount
which he has received through cheque dated 12.3.1994 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% with respondent
company as well as other benefits which might have been given to the appellant within four weeks from the
production of certified copy of the order, the appellant will be reinstated in service.
n) The management preferred Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was letter on converted into Civil Appeal No.1089 of
2004:M/s. Scooters India Limtied & others Vs. Jagdish Chandra Nigam which was allowed by means of the
judgment and order dated 12.2.2004 and the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 rendered by the Division
Bench of the High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow has been set aside.
o) Being aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 12.2.2004, Sri Jagdish Chandra Nigam had preferred a
Review Petition No.747 of 2004: J.C. Nigam Vs. M/s. Scooters India Limited, which has also been
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment and order dated 28.4.2004. Sri Nigam
also preferred a Curative Petition No.152 of 2008 and the same has also been dismissed by the Constitution
Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 21.1.2009. Thus it is crystal clear that
the matter in dispute has already been decided by the competent court of law and now nothing remains to be
adjudicated upon by this Tribunal.
p) It is crystal clear that the principles of res-judicata applies into the matter and accordingly the reference is
liable to be rejected, out rightly without going into the merit of the case.
3216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Accordingly, it has been prayed by respondent that the present industrial dispute may be dismissed being devoid of
any merit.
Thereafter documents, evidences etc. had been exchanged between the parties. Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Learned
Counsel for the respondent submits that the preliminary objections taken by them may be considered first and
thereafter the matter be heard on merits.
Finding & conclusion on the Preliminary Objections:
I have heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for claimant and Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla and Sri A.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent.
It is not in dispute between the parties that Harinayak Singh-applicant/workman was appointed as semi skilled worker
in establishment known as Scooter India Limited on 20.11.1973, Grade-C having service No. 1095. Scooter India
Limited floated a scheme known as Voluntary Retirement (hereinafter referred to as ‘VRS’).
On 30.11.1993 applicant submitted an application for opting VRS and the same was accepted by the respondent on
30.11.1993 and his date of release under the said scheme was notified as 31.11.1993 and consequently applicant was
voluntary retired from service under the Scheme with all consequential benefits and the same were received by him.
Meanwhile on 6.11.1993 a circular was issued which reads as under:-
“Sub:
Voluntary Retirement Scheme – suspension thereof
The Voluntary retirement scheme circulated vide circular no.SIL/PER/NC-63/88 dated 8.12.88 for the
employees of the Company will remain suspended w.e.f.1.12.1993.”
So a letter/representation dated 03.12.1993, submitted by applicant for withdrawal/rejection of his application dated
30.11.1993 for voluntary retirement from services on the ground mentioned therein.
From the material on record the position which emerges out that initially aggrieved by the action of the respondent
thereby not considering application of the workman/applicant dated 03.12.1993 for rejecting/withdrawing acceptance
of voluntary retirement by him under the scheme known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he raised a industrial
dispute under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act which rejected by the Conciliation Officer.
Aggrieved by the said facts, the workman/applicant along with other similarly situated employees filed a Writ Petition
no. 2620 (SS) of 2000 (Rajendra Singh & others Versus M/s. Scooter India Limited & others).
The said writ petition was heard by the Hon’ble High Court along with leading Writ Petition No.2146 (SS) of 2000
(S.V. Jaiswal Versus M/s. Scooter India Limited & others).
By means of order dated 8.2.2006 the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No.2146 (SS) of 2000 along
with other connected writ petitions including the Writ Petition No. 2620 (SS) of 2000, the relevant portion, quoted
below:-
“The question whether voluntary retirement would come under the definition of retrenchment or compulsory
retirement or not, was considered in a number of cases which have been relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite party, one main of them has been reported in 1997(2), UPLBEC 1262,
Jagdish Chand Nigam Vs. Scooter India Limited.
In similar circumstances, the petitioners had taken voluntary retirement. The Bench of this court observed
that the petitioner had occupied offer of his premature retirement, in order to receive the compensation, for
the last tenure of service offered by the respondents. The offer made by the employers was accepted by the
employees. The benefits provided by the respondents under this scheme were accepted by the petitioner.
Since the workman had accepted the scheme and himself had opted to retire under this scheme, he cannot be
allowed to approbate or reprobate. In the present case of the petitioner, the employees had accepted all
benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, so they cannot retract from the obligations and exercise
their right, integrally connected with the performance of the obligations under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme.
In view of the above facts and in view of the principles of law laid down in the above noted case and after
accepting offer of huge incentive, they now cannot withdraw their resignation and if their services had come
to an end on account of it, they cannot be allowed to raise it in this manner as their grievance. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in Special Leave Petition affirmed this judgment. The same principles were laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in another case reported in 2004(100) FLR 648, Punjab National Bank Vs. Virendra
Kumar Goel and others and AIR 2003 SC 858, Bank of India with other banks Vs. Virendra Kumar Goel and
others, wherein it was laid down that retirement was to take effect only after the request was accepted. Such
scheme is only an intimation to offer which can be withdrawn before it is accepted contractual bar created
under the scheme to withdraw the request once made by employees cannot be made.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3217
In the present case there is no dispute that the petitioners themselves had approached the scheme and had
accepted all the benefits and after accepting all the benefits, after a lapse of long time, had tried to raise this
dispute. The Conciliation Officer, in these circumstances for sufficient reasons allowed the application of
the petitioners.
I find no merit in these writ petitions. They are fit to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed with costs.”
Against order dated 8.2.2006 Sri Rajendra Singh & others filed a Review Petition No.76 of 2006 (Rajendra Singh &
others Vs. M/s. Scooter India Limited & others) which too was dismissed by means of order dated 13.5.2008 which is
quoted below:-
“There appears no error apparent at the face of record. The review petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.”
However, above said facts have been concealed by applicant while filing the present I.D. Case with oblique motive
and purpose.
As such, it is rightly submitted on behalf of respondent that present case on the same relief in respect to which earlier
claimant’s case u/s 2A of the Act was rejected, is barred by the principle of res-judicata.
Further, one Sri Jagdish Chandra Nigam whose case was identical to the case of claimant, filed a Special Appeal
No.48 (SB) of 1997, allowed by means of judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 (reported in 2000CJ(All) 309), the
relevant portion, quoted below:-
“18. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble the single Judge is set aside to
the extent, the observations made in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment. But we provide that in case
the appellant deposits the entire amount which he has received through cheque dated March 12, 1994
alongwith interest at the rate of 12% with Scooters India Limited, as well as other benefits which might have
been given to the appellant within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order,
the appellant will be reinstated in service. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we
further provide that the appellant will not be entitled for payment of back wages.
19. As far as the case of the petitioners of other writ petitions are concerned, the fact of those writ petitioners
are not exactly identical to the facts which have been indicated in the present Special Appeal. But as this
Court has decided the present Special Appeal more or less on same propositions of law although the fact
might be different, we heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in all the writ petitions
alongwith special appeal, which are connected with this special appeal as well.
20. As we have already indicated that those employees who withdrew their application for voluntary
retirement before the prospective date mentioned in the original application for voluntary retirement, shall
he entitled for the relief. But those persons, who have not withdrawn their voluntary retirement before the
prospective date, would not be entitled for any relief.
21. We further provide that those petitioners, who opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme from a
prospective date and withdrew their resignations before the said prospective date, but were, relieved by the
management of the Scooters India Ltd. would be entitled to the relief as Jagdish Chandra Nigam has been
provided, provided they filed the writ petitions within one month from the date of the relieving orders. If they
had filed the writ petition after one month from the date of relieving orders, they would not be entitled for
any relief.
22. With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal as well as all the writ petitions are disposed of.”
Judgment/order dated 18.12.2000 challenged by way of filing a S.L.P. having Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.10352/2001 (M/s. Scooters India Ltd & others versus Jagdish Chandra Nigam) along with other S.L.P.s which
were connected. In the above noted S.L.P. an order dated 12.2.2004 was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which
reads as under:-
“Leave Granted.
For the reasons stated in our order passed today in C.A. No.4098/2002, this appeal is allowed.
The order and judgment under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Thus, as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the S.L.P. filed by M/s. Scooters India Limited was
allowed and judgment and order passed in the case of Special Appeal filed by Sri Jagdish Chandra Nigam was set
aside/S.L.P. filed by Sri Jagdish Chandra Nigam was dismissed.
Moreover order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10352/2001 (M/s.
Scooters India Ltd & others versus Jagdish Chandra Nigam) based upon order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in C.A. No.4098 of 2002 (Bank of India & others Vs. Pale Ram Dhania), reproduced below:-
3218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“1. It is not disputed that the appellant Bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (herein
referred to as "the Scheme") for its employees which had the approval of its Board of Directors. The Scheme
was operative w.e.f. November 15, 2000 to December 14, 2000 for the employees who sought voluntary
retirement. It is not disputed that the respondent herein who was an employee of the appellant Bank sought
voluntary retirement under the Scheme on November 30, 2000. It is also not disputed that on December 2,
2000 he wrote to the Bank for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. On January 22, 2001,
the appellant Bank accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the respondent. Further, on January 25,
2001, the respondent withdrew the retiral benefits deposited in the Bank in his name as per voluntary
retirement. It appears that the respondent changed his mind after the respondent was relieved from the
employment and he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acceptance of his
request for voluntary retirement. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition and set aside
the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent. Aggrieved, the
appellants preferred a letters patent appeal which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the
appellants are in appeal before us.
2. A Bench of three Judges of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel , has held that an
employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the
amount of retiral benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his
application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the respondent herein
withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on January 25, 2001.
3. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly. The order and
judgment under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs”.
In Review Petition (Civil) No.53 of 2003 arising out of Appeal (Civil) No.896 of 2002 (Punjab National Bank Versus
Virender Kumar Goel & others), the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.1.2004 passed an order. The relevant of order
dated 21.1.2004 reads as under:-
“I.A.NOS. 1-22
These applications have been filed by the State Bank of Patiala for clarification/directions. The ground taken
in these applications is that the State Bank of Patiala is not a nationalised bank. It is hundred per cent a
subsidiary of the State Bank of India. The VRS scheme floated by the State Bank of Patiala is in para-materia
with the scheme floated by the State Bank of India. This Court in the judgment dated 17.12.2002 allowed the
appeals filed by the State Bank of India but nothing has been said about the appeals filed by the State Bank
of Patiala. In the interregnum, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, in which one of us (Sema, J) was a member,
considered the same question in Civil Appeal No. 2341 of 2003 arising out of Special Leave Petition No.
23530 of 2002 entitled State Bank of Patiala Vs. Jagga Singh, disposed of on 13.3.2003, where this Court
after considering Clause 8 of the scheme floated by the State Bank of Patiala and Clause 7 of the scheme
floated by the State Bank of India, had held that the scheme floated by the State Bank of Patiala is almost
identical of the scheme floated by the State Bank of India. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State Bank of
Patiala was allowed. Review Petition was also dismissed on 3.12.2003. In view thereof, we clarify that our
direction No.2, allowing the appeals filed by the State Bank of India, would also include the appeals filed by
the State Bank of Patiala. In other words, the appeals filed by the State Bank of Patiala are allowed in terms
of our judgment dated 17.12.2002. I.A.NOS. 14-15 I.A.No.14 has been filed by an employee of the bank
sought to clarify/modify our order dated 17.12.2002. In this case, admittedly, the benefit of the scheme had
been withdrawn by the applicant on 27.2.2001. The applicant had clearly admitted, in ground E of the
application, withdrawal of the amount so credited in his account, albeit compelling financial constraints.
I.A.No.15 has been filed by an employee of the bank for clarification/modification of our order dated
17.12.2002. In para 6 of the application, the applicant admitted that he had withdrawn and utilised the
benefit of the scheme credited in his account.
As noticed in our judgment, having accepted the benefit under the scheme by withdrawing and utilisation
thereof they are not permitted to approbate and reprobate.”
Moreover Sri J.C. Nigam filed a Review Petition (Civil) No.747 of 2004 in C.A. No.1089 of 2004 (J.C. Nigam
Versus M/s. Scooter India Limited & others) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the following order dated
28.4.2004 passed:-
“We do not filed any merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.”
Thereafter, Sri J.C. Nigam filed a Curative Petition No.152 of 2008 against order dated 28.4.2004 passed in Review
Petition (Civil) No.747 of 2004 which was dismissed by an order dated 20.1.2009, quoted below:-
“We have perused the petition and the connected papers. In our view, no case is made out within the
parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr. 2002(4)
SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3219
In addition to the above said facts, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the constitution bench in the case of Rupa Ashok
Hurra Versus Ashok Hurra & Anr, reported in 2002(4) SCC 388 held as under:-
“Incidentally, this Court stands out to be an avenue for redressal of grievance not only in its revisional
jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution but as a platform and forum for every grievance in the country
and it is on this context Mr.Shanti Bhushan, appearing in support of the some of the petitioners, submitted
that the Supreme Court in its journey for over 50 years has been able to obtain the confidence of the people
of the country, whenever the same is required be it the atrocities of the police or a public grievance
pertaining to a governmental action involving multitudes of problems. It is the Supreme Court, Mr. Shanti
Bhushan contended, where the people feel confident that justice is above all and would be able to obtain
justice in its true form and sphere and this is beyond all controversies. It has been contended that finality of
the proceeding after an Order of the Supreme Court, there should be, but that does not preclude or said to
preclude this Court from going into the factum of the petition for gross injustice caused by an Order of the
Supreme Court itself under the inherent power being an authority to correct its errors any other view should
not and ought not be allowed to be continued. Needless to record here, however, that review jurisdiction
stand foisted upon this Court in terms of the provisions of the Constitution, as noticed hereinbefore and it is
also well-settled that a second review petition cannot be said to maintainable. Reference maybe made in this
context to a decision of this Court in the case of J.Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 535),
wherein this Court in paragraph 3 stated as below :-
"We are clearly of the opinion that these applications are not maintainable. The petitioner, who appeared in
person, referred to the judgment in Antulay's case (1988) 2 SCC 602 : (AIR 1988 SC 1531). We are,
however, of the opinion that the principle of that case is not applicable here. All the points which the
petitioner urged regarding the constitutionality of the Government orders in question as well as the
appointment of respondent instead of petitioner to the post in question had been urged before the Bench,
which heard the civil appeal and writ petitions originally. The petitioner himself stated that he was heard by
the Bench at some length. It is, therefore, clear that the matters were disposed of after a consideration of all
the points urged by the petitioner and the mere fact that the order does not discuss the contentions or give
reasons cannot entitle the petitioner to have what is virtually a second review."
True, due regard shall have to have as regards opinion of the Court in Ranga Swamy (supra), but the
situation presently centres round that in the event of there being any manifest injustice would the doctrine of
ex debito justitiae be said to be having a role to play in sheer passivity or to rise above the ordinary heights
as it preaches that justice is above all. The second alternative seems to be in consonance with time and
present phase of socio-economic conditions of the society. Manifest justice is curable in nature rather than
incurable and this court would lose its sanctity and thus would belie the expectations of the founding fathers
that justice is above all. There is no manner of doubt that procedural law/procedural justice cannot
overreach the concept of justice and in the event an Order stands out to create manifest injustice, would the
same be allowed to remain in silenco so as to affect the parties perpetually or the concept of justice ought to
activate the Court to find a way out to resolve the erroneous approach to the problem. Mr.Attorney General,
with all the emphasis in his command, though principally agreed that justice of the situation needs to be
looked into and relief be granted if so required but on the same breath submitted that the Court ought to be
careful enough to trade on the path, otherwise the same will open up Pandora's box and thus, if at all, in
rarest of the rare cases the further scrutiny may be made. While it is true that law courts has overburdened
itself with the litigation and delay in disposal of matters in the subcontinent is not unknown and in the event
of any further appraisal of the matter by this Court, it would brook on further delay resulting in
consequences which are not far to see but that would by itself not in my view deter this Court from further
appraisal of the matter in the event the same, however, deserve such an additional appraisal The note of
caution sounded by Mr. Attorney as regards opening up of pandora's box strictly speaking, however, though
may be of very practical in nature but the same apparently does not seem to go well with the concept of
justice as adumbrated in our constitution. True it is, that practicability of the situation needs a serious
consideration more so when this Court could do without it for more than 50 years, which by no stretch of
imagination can be said to be a period not so short. I feel it necessary, however, to add that it is not that we
are not concerned with the consequences of reopening of the issue but the redeeming feature of our justice
delivery system, as is prevalent in the country, is adherence to proper and effective administration of justice
in stricto. In the event there is any affectation of such an administration of justice either by way of infraction
of natural justice or an order being passed wholly without jurisdiction or affectation of public confidence as
regards the doctrine of integrity in the justice delivery system technicality ought not to out-weigh the course
of justice the same being the true effect of the doctrine of ex debito justitiae. The oft quoted statement of law
of Lord Hewart, CJ in R v. Susssex Justices, ex p McCarthy (1924 (1) KB 256) that it is of fundamental
importance that justice should not only be done, should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done had
this doctrine underlined and administered therein. In this context, the decision of the House of Lords in R v.
Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2) seem to be an
3220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ipoc making decision, wherein public confidence on the judiciary is said to be the basic criteria of the justice
delivery system any act or action even if it a passive one, if erodes or even likely to erode the ethics of
judiciary, matter needs a further look. Brother Quadri has taken very great pains to formulate the steps to be
taken and the methodology therefor, in the event of there being an infraction of the concept of justice, as
such further dilation would be an unnecessary exercise which I wish to avoid since I have already recorded
my concurrence therewith excepting, however, lastly that curative petitions ought to be treated as a rarity
rather than regular and the appreciation of the Court shall have to be upon proper circumspection having
regard to the three basic features of our justice delivery system to wit, the order being in contravention of the
doctrine of natural justice or without jurisdiction or in the event of there is even a likelihood of public
confidence being shaken by reason of the association or closeness of a judge with the subject matter in
dispute. In my view, it is now time that procedural justice system should give way to the conceptual justice
system and efforts of the law Court ought to be so directed. Gone are the days where implementation of
draconian system of law or interpretation thereof were insisted upon - Flexibility of the law Courts presently
are its greatest virtue and as such justice oriented approach is the need of the day to strive and forge ahead
in the 21st century.”
Thus, from the above said facts and the material on record, as the present industrial dispute stands on the same footing
as of Sri Jagdish Chandra Nigam, so in view of the judgment passed Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Jagdish
Chandra Nigam thereafter in Review Petition and Curative Petition, by him which were also dismissed.
Accordingly, preliminary objection taken by learned counsel for respondent are allowed and claim petition filed by
claimant liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons the present industrial dispute is dismissed, workman is not entitled for any relief; and the
reference is answered accordingly.
Lucknow.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
06th May, 2024
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1439.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
एम्पलॉईस प्रोजवडेंट फण्ड आगेनाईिेिन के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और गोमान्तक मज़िूर संघ के बीच अनुबंि में
जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.22/2007) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. एल-42012/142/2005-आईआर(सीएम-II)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1439.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22 /2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-42012/142/2005-IR(CM-II)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3221
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/22 of 2007
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I.
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
24, Patto Plaza, Panaji,
Goa – 403001
FIRST PARTY
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary,
Gomanatak Mazdoor sangh,
Shetye Sankul, 3rd Floor,
Tisk, Ponda,
Goa
SECOND PARTY
APPEARANCES:
First Party
:
Mr. M. N. Rajput
Advocate
Second Party
:
Mr. P. Gaonkar
Representative
AWARD
(Delivered on 26-06-2024)
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42012/142/2005 – IR (CM-II) dated 12.06.2007. The
terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of The Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Goa in refusing
employment to Smt. Anita Kubal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled”.
2. According to the Second party its union is a registered Trade union of workmen employed in various industries
in Goa and the First party is constituted in accordance with the provisions of The Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952”. According to the Second party, workman Smt. Anita Kubal joined the services
of First party as clerk in 1987 and worked continuously. Mr. Ganesh Kubal, her husband was ‘General Secretary’ of
staff union, dismissed for union activities on 04-04-1984. He challenged his dismissal therefore workman was
harassed by the management and mentally tortured by male staff, however inspite of complaints no action was taken
but the staff was protected.
The second party submits that, due to mental torture, the workman was unable to work peacefully therefore she
submitted conditional resignation informing the management that, if no action is taken, she has no option except to
remain at home however no action was taken nor informed about the fate of resignation therefore the dispute has been
raised in 2005. The approach of the management was adamant. Lastly the second party urged that, force resignation
from the workman is nothing but illegal termination, thus prays for reinstatement with full back wages of workman by
answering the reference in affirmative.
3222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The First party resisted the reference by reply. The First party contended that, the second party union is not
recognized union of The Employees’ Provident Fund Organization therefore no locus-standi to raise the dispute and
for want of cause of action, the present reference is not tenable under law and the same is barred by limitation.
In the alternative, the First party submitted that, workman Smt. Anita Kubal joined the organization in 1987, not
worked continuously but with break in service. She was in habit of making false allegation against the male workers
however she used to refuse to attend the enquiry which was set up on her allegation. She was requested vide letter
dated 15-11-2001 to give the names of male staff with proof, but no reply was received. She used to submit
resignation occasionally without any reasons on false pleas with a view to put pressure on management. The first
party further contended that, resignation tendered by the workman was voluntary on her own free will, consent and
not under duress. Moreover she informed that her resignation is voluntarily and later be treated as final notice of
resignation as such there is no termination as alleged much less illegal and the workman is not entitled for relief of
reinstatement with full back wages as prayed and ultimately prayed that, the reference be answered in the negative.
4. My Learned Predecessor framed the issues. I have re-arranged the same as follows. My Findings and Reasons
of them are as below:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1.
Is Reference tenable in the present forum?
Yes.
2.
Does the Second party prove that she was forced to tender
resignation?
No.
3.
Does the First party prove that resignation given by Second party
was voluntarily?
Yes.
4.
Is Second party entitled for relief sought?
No.
5.
What Order ?
As per Award.
REASONS
5. Issue No. 1- It will not be out of this to mention here that, during proceeding the first party moved an application
at Ex.-41 regarding maintainability of the reference for want of Jurisdiction and on that application my Learned
Predecessor passed an order stating therein that, the application will be considered on merit as such I am dealing with
the aspect of Jurisdiction of the Court.
6. The First party stated in the application that, the Second party wrongly approach to this forum as for the
employees of EPFO, Central Administrative Tribunal is the proper forum therefore the present Reference is not
tenable under Law.
True, it is that, the workman Smt. Anita Kubal being an employee of the First party her services were
governed by the Central Civil Services Rules therefore the Central Administrative Tribunal was the forum available to
the second party for her grievance however at the same time the workman being an employee of the Central
Government she can approach to this Tribunal also.
It is worthwhile to mention here that, Section 28 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, excludes the
Jurisdiction of all Courts, in respect of matters for which, the Tribunal under the Act, exercises the Jurisdiction,
except the Supreme Court and the Labour Courts and other authorities under the Industrial Dispute Acts. It means the
Jurisdiction of the Labour Court is not barred as such it can be safely said that, this Court being an authority under the
Industrial Dispute Acts has concurrent Jurisdiction to decide the grievance of the Central Government Employees
therefore the present reference referred by Central Government to this Tribunal is certainly tenable under Law.
7. As regards the limitation, there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Dispute Acts for raising an
Industrial Dispute and as per the settled position of Law, the dispute raised by the workman cannot be thrown only on
the ground of delay. Moreover if the Reference is belated, then at the most such aspect of delay can be considered
while granting relief, as such it cannot be said that, the present Reference is barred by the limitation. In short, the
Reference as framed is tenable under Law before this forum, hence I answer this issue in the affirmative.
8. Issue No. 2 & 3- Both these issues are inter-related therefore answered together. In support of claim the second
party examined Puti Govind Gaonkar, General Secretary of the Gomantak Mazdoor Union, whereas the first party has
not adduced any oral evidence before the Court and relied the various copies of document filed before the Court
alongwith list Ex-17 and all those documents are admitted by the second party therefore exhibited also.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3223
There appears no dispute that, the second party workman Smt. Anita Kubal was the employee of the first party
since 1987. Mr. Ganesh Kubal (a husband of workman) was also in the employment of the first party and he was
dismissed from service on 04-04-1994. Smt. Anita Kubal, second party workman submitted her resignation however
the second party nowhere mentioned in the statement of claim nor in evidence affidavit (Ex-13) about the date, when
second party workman submitted her resignation. However the witness of the second party admitted in cross
examination that, the workman submitted resignation letter on 01-11-2001.
9. On careful perusal of the documents filed along with list Ex-17 it reveals that, Mrs Anita Kubal submitted
resignation on 01-11-2001, the copy of that resignation letter is at (Ex-34). It further reveals that after 01-11-2001
some correspondence was made by the first party with the second party workman and by later dated 24-11-2001 (Ex-
31) the second party workman submitted a letter requesting that she is submitting resignation from service and treat it
as her final notice and by later dated 21-01-2002 (Ex-32) resignation tendered by Smt A. G. Kubal LDC accepted
with effect from 21-01-2002 and she was relieved from duties with effect from 21-01-2002 (afternoon). The second
party workman tendered resignation on 01-11-2001, the same was accepted by first party on 21-01-2002 and she was
relieved from duty with effect from 21-01-2002.
10. It is contended on behalf of the Second party that, the workman Smt. Anita Kubal was mentally torchered and
harassed by the male staff of the First party. This fact was informed to the First party but no action was taken against
the staff members. Moreover, the staff members were protected therefore workman Smt. Anita Kubal was forced to
resign from service as such the resignation submitted by the workman was forced resignation amounts to termination.
11. I may mention here that considering the allegations made in the resignation letter dated 01-11-2001 (Ex-34) it
seems that, the allegations made in the letter are vague in nature. There are no names of person, who harassed
mentally to the workman. Not only this but, there is no whisper in the statement of claim nor in the evidence affidavit
about the names of male staff, who harassed the workman. It reveals from the letter dated 15-11-2001 (Ex-33) that,
the workman Smt. Anita Kubal was asked to submit the names of male staff for necessary action however it reflects
from the copy of letter dated 27-12-2001 (Ex-30) that, the workman failed to submit the names of male staff.
Similarly by another letter the workman was also requested to submit the names of the staff members however there
seems no reply from the workman.
12.
It reveals from the case papers that, during proceeding the First party made an application Ex-44 and thereby
sought direction from the Court to cross examine the workman Smt. Anita Kubal and after hearing the Parties, my
Learned Predecessor by this order dated 13-7-2017 directed the Second party workman Smt. Anita Kubal to appear
before the Court for cross examination however it seems that inspite of the order of the Court, the workman did not
stepped in the witness box and not subjected herself for cross examination.
In fact, the workman Smt. Alka Kubal was the necessary person to state before the Court about the instances
of harassment by the male staff of the First party but as she failed to depose before the Court, the contention regarding
the harassment and torchered by male staff cannot be said to be true not only this but, it seems from the letter Ex-31
that, the Second party workman informed to the First party about this resignation and also requested to treat it as final
notice.
From the above discussion it is clear that, the Second party failed to prove that, the workman Smt. Anita
Kubal was forced to tender her resignation.
13. Furthermore, on plain reading of copy of resignation letter dated 01-11-2001 (Ex-34), the workman Smt. Alka
Kubal made allegations against the male staff without giving the names of persons. On the basis of that, the First party
attempted to make enquiry but the workman Smt. Alka Kubal did not co-operate and finally the workman by letter
Ex-31 requested the First party to accept the resignation, the Second party miserably failed to demonstrate before the
Court that, the workman Smt Anita Kubal was forced to resigne from service.
As the Second party fails to prove before the Court that, the workman was forced to resign moreover it
seems that, the workman Smt. Anita Kubal tendered resignation making some allegations against male staff without
any proof. In enquiry made by the First party she did not appear and lastly workman Smt. Anita Kubal requested to
accept the resignation in such circumstances it can be said that, the resignation was not at all conditional or forced but
it is voluntarily resignation and the same was accepted. Hence, I answer these issues accordingly:
14. Issue No. 4- I have observed earlier that, the Second party failed to prove that, the workman Smt. Anita Kubal
was forced to tender resignation and the resignation tendered by Smt. Anita Kubal was not forced the same was
voluntarily resignation and it does not amount to termination, therefore the Second party is not entitled for relief
sought. Hence I answer this issue in the negative.
In the result I proceed to pass the following Award-
AWARD
1.
The Reference is answered in negative.
2.
The Second party is not entitled for relief as prayed.
3.
No order as to cost.
3224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The copy of Award be sent to the Government.
Date: 26-06-2024
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1440.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससव ओएनिीसी जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिाराष्ट्र संघरटत असंघरटत कामगार सभा के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 63/2018) को
िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 18.07.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल - 30011/31/2018-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1440.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 63 /2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s ONGC Limited and Maharashtra Sanghatit Asanghatit Kamgar Sabha which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-30011/31/2018-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/63 of 2018
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/s ONGC Ltd.
The Deputy General Manager(HR)-IR,
M/s ONGC Ltd, NBP Green Heights,
Q.No. 1,4th Floor, Plot No. C-69,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary,
Maharashtra Sanghatit Asanghatit
Kamgar Sabha,
30, Shree Building, 2nd Floor, Ranade Road,
Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr P.A. Deogaonkar
Advocate
FOR THE WORKMAN
:
Mr. Suryakant Bagal
Representative
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3225
AWARD
(Delivered on 28-06-2024)
1.
This reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/31/2018 – IR (M) dated 26.11.2018. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows :
“Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., Mumbai over deduction of Rs. 60,000/- from the
wages of contract labourers is proper, legal and justified? If not, what reliefs the workmen are entited to?
What directions, if any, are required in the matter?
2.
Read joint application Ex-6 signed by the General Secretary of the Maharashtra Sanghatit Asanghatit
Kamgar Sabha and advocate of the First party. Heard Mr. Suryakant Bagal representative for Second party and Mr. P.
A. Deogaonkar Advocate for the First party.
It appears that, the Second Party Union has settled all the disputes including present dispute out of the Court
with the First Party and therefore the Second Party does not want prosecute this Reference further. This fact is also
corroborated by the Council for the Opponent present before the Court. In view of this the Reference is disposed of as
settled. No Order as to cost. Proceeding is closed.
ORDER
1. The Award is answered in the negative.
2. The Second Party Union is not entitled for any relief.
3. No Order as to cost.
4. The copy of the Order be sent to the Government.
Date: 28-06-2024
SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1441.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससव
रािस्ट्थान स्ट्टेट माईन्स एंड जमनरल जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और आर.एस.एम.एम. मज़िूर मिासंघ के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ियपुर, पंचाट (ररफेरेंस न. 21/2008) को िैसा दक
अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल - 29011/29/2005-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1441.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 21/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited and R.S.M.M. Mazdoor Mahasangh which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-29011/29/2005-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
3226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-29011/29/2005-IR (M) Dated: 13.05.2008
tujy lsdszVjh] vkj-,l-,e-,e- etnwj egkla?k] 136 x.kifr&d`ik] pksrhuk dqavk] chdkusj]
-------izkFkhZ
1- nh ps;jesu] eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbZUl ,.M feujy fy-] [kfut Hkou] lh- Ldhe] t;iqj] ¼jkt-½A
2- eSusftax] Mk;jsDVj] eSllZ jktLFkku LVsV ekbZUl ,.M feujy fy-] 4] ehjk ekxZ] mn;iqj] ¼jkt-½A
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh ,e- Qk:[k- csx] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh jkts'k eh.kk] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 13-05-2008 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek=
vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn
U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the demand of the RSMM Mazdoor Mahasangh that the Sahayaks should
be given the scale of Rs. 4370/- instead of Rs. 4165/- is justified? If so, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?”
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 04-11-2009 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ,d
jftLVMZ Jfed la?k gS rFkk vizkFkhZ izca/kdx.k ds v/khu dk;Zjr lgk;d izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds lnL; gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u us
lgk;d ds in ij dk;Zjr lgk;dksa dks 4165@&:- ds osrueku ds LFkku ij 4370@&:- ds osrueku esa osru fnyk;s
tkus dh ekWx dhA bl laca/k esa foi{khx.k ds ;gkW izkFkhZ us ,d ekWx i= Hkh Hkstk FkkA jktLFkku LVsV feujy MoysiesUV
dksiZjs’ku fy- ¼ftls la{ksi esa RSMDC dgk tkosxk½ rFkk jktLFkku LVsV ekbZUl ,.M feujy fy- ¼ftls vkxs RSMM
dgk tkosxk½ dk lekesyu fnukad 20-02-2003 dks gks pqdk gSA nksuksa laLFkkuksa esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds dk;Z vkSj osru esa
le:irk gksuh pkfg;sA RSMM vkSj RSMDC ds foy; ds le; deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku ,oa in ds fy;s Jh vkj- ts-
ethfB;k ,oa ,l- ,l- ijukeh lsok fuo`Rr IAS vf/kdkfj;ksa dh ,d dfeVh dk xBu fd;k x;k FkkA foi{khx.k ds
vf/kdkfj;ksa us Hkh bl vk’k; dk lq>kko fn;k Fkk fd deZpkfj;ksa dks izFke fu;qfDr ds vk/kkj ij leku in ij leku osru
fn;k tkosA RSMDC ds lgk;d deZpkfj;ksa dks etnwj] gsYij] lhfu;j gsYij dk inuke fn;k tk jgk gSA RSMM esa
etnwj o Lohij dh fu;qfDr dsVsxjh ua- 1 esa rFkk ihvksu pkSdhnkj vkSj gsYij dh fu;qfDr dsVsxjh ua- 2 esa dh tkrh gSA
izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ;g ekWx djrh gS fd RSMM vkSj RSMDC ds foy; ds ckn dk;Zjr ihvksu de pkSdhnkj ,oa lgk;d
de pkSdhnkj nksuksa dk dke leku gksus ds dkj.k osrueku ,oa inksUurh ds volj leku fd;s tkosA f}i{kh; le>kSrk
fnukad 09-07-2003 ,oa 18-08-2004 izkFkhZ dks Lohdkj ugha gSA vr% okn Lohdkj fd;k tkdj foi{khx.k ds v/khu lgk;d
ds in ij dk;Zjr Jfedksa dks muds led{k dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks osru Ja`[kyk 4370@& esa tks osru fn;k tk jgk gS
mlh osrueku esa osru fn;k tkosA vFkkZr 4165@&:- osru Ja`[kyk ds LFkku ij 4370@&:- osru Ja`[kyk esa osru
LFkjhd`r djrs gq;s osru dk varj fnyk;k tkosA
3- foi{khx.k dh vksj ls fnukad 27-11-2011 dks oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ egkla?k laLFkku }kjk
ekU;rk izkIr ugha gSA ;g la?k laLFkku ds cgqla[;d Jfedksa dk izfrfuf/kRo ugha djrkA blfy, Jfedksa dh lkekU; ekWax
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3227
dks mBkus dks vf/kd`r ugha gSA foi{kh laLFkku ds cgqla[;d Jfedksa dk izfrfuf/kRo djus okys ekU;rk izkIr la?k
RSMML odZlZ QsMjs'ku ¼baVd½ ds lkFk le>kSrk fnukad 09-07-2003] ftlesa Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ Hkh mifLFkr Fks ds
varxZr RSMM vkSj RSMDC dkexkjksa dk osru lekuhdj.k fd;k tkdj RSMDC ds dkexkjksa }kjk fodYi fn;s tkus ds
mijkar mUgsa RSMM ds dkexkjksa dks ns; osru HkRrs ,oa vU; lqfo/kk;s iznku dh tkdj ykHk fn;k tk pqdk gSA tks
deZpkjh RSMM ds osru HkRrs vkSj lqfo/kk;s ugha pkgrs Fks mudks RSMDC ds osru HkRrs in ,oa lqfo/kk;s tkjh j[kus
dk fodYi [kqyk gqvk FkkA Jh vkj- ts- ethfB;k ,oa ,l- ,l- ijukeh dh desBh dk xBu fd;k x;k Fkk ijarq mlds ckn
le>kSrk fnukad 09-07-2003 izca/ku vkSj Jfedksa ds chp gks x;k tks ykxw Hkh gks pqdk gSA ethfB;k desBh dh flQkfj’kksa
dks ekuus ds fy, izca/ku ck/; ugha FkkA laLFkkuksa ds foy; ds ckn fdlh Hkh deZpkjh dks ihvksu ,oa pkSdhnkj dk in ugha
fn;k x;k pwfda le>kSrs ds vuq:Ik fn;s x;s ykHkksa ls lHkh deZpkjh ykHkkfUor gks pqds gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus
dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
4- fnukad 12-05-2011 dks izkFkhZ dh vksj ls oknksRrj ds izfr vfrfjDr dFku izLrqr fd;s x;s vkSj oknksRrj ds rF;ksa dks
vLohdkj fd;k x;kA vkSj iqu% okn Lohdkj djus dk vkxzg fd;k x;kA
5- izkFkhZ us vius lk{; esa Jh fpjath yky 'kekZ o Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ W-1
ls izn'kZ W-14 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
6- foi{khx.k us vius lk{; esa Jh iUukyky dqekor ,oa Jh gjh'k dqekj O;kl dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ M-
1 ls izn'kZ M-5 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;kA
7- fnukad 07-09-2017 dks foi{khx.k dh vksj ls vius fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s x;s ftudh izfr izkFkhZ i{k dks miyC/k djk;h
xbZA izkFkhZ i{k us fnukad 08-04-2019 dks vius fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr fd;s ftudh izfr foi{khx.k dks nh xbZA rnqiajkr
mHk;i{k ekSf[kd cgl gsrq LFkxu ysrs jgsA fnukad 01-05-2024 dks mHk;i{k us vf/kdj.k ls fuosnu fd;k fd pwfd nksuksa
gh i{k fyf[kr rdZ izLrqr dj pqds gSa blfy, ekSf[kd rdZ ugha djuk pkgrsA
8- eSaus mHk;i{k ds fyf[kr rdksZ dk /;ku iwoZd euu fd;k ,oa miyC/k lk{; rFkk foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarks
esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu fd;kA
9- izkFkhZ us vius fyf[kr rdksZ esa ;g dgk gS fd leku dk;Z ,oa leku osru ds fl}kar ds vk/kkj ij RSMDC ds
deZpkfj;ksa ds osru vkSj HkRrs tks fd RSMM ds deZpkfj;ksa ls U;wurj gS] ogh gksus pkfg;s tks RSMM ds deZpkfj;ksa
ds gaSA RSMDC vkSj RSMM nksuksa dk lekesyu gks tkuk Lohd`r rF; gSA RSMM ds lgk;d@pkSdhnkj ¼ihvksu½
dk osrueku 4370@& Fkk tcfd RSMDC ds lgk;d@pkSdhnkj dks osrueku 4165@& fn;k x;kA RSMDC ds
lgk;dks ds dk;Z dh izd`fr ihvksu dh rjg Fkh vkSj ;s ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr etnwj ugha FksA foy; ds ckn RSMM us Hkh
buls dk;kZy; esa gh dk;Z fy;kA fnukad 09-07-2003 dks gq;s le>kSrs esa lgk;dks ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ckn esa gksuk r; fd;k
x;k FkkA fnukad 18-08-2004 ds le>kSrs ds varxZr tks osru vkSj inuke fn;s tk jgs gS] os xyr gSA ;s le>kSrk f=i{kh;
ugha gS] u gh Je foHkkx esa iathd`r gSA bl ij lHkh lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa ds gLrk{kj Hkh ugha gSA foi{kh ds lk{kh Jh
iUukyky us RSMDC ds lgk;d rFkk RSMM ds ihvksu ds dk;Z dh izd`fr ,d lh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ
la?k dks iathd`r la?k gksuk Hkh ekuk gSA Jh dj.khyky 'kekZ ls ncko Mkydj fodYi ij gLrk{kj djok;s x;sA D;ksafd
izca/ku us ;g dgk fd fodYi i= ugha nsxsa] rks osru ugha feysxkA odZlZ QsMjs’ku dh ekU;rk ek= nks o"kZ ds fy;s Fkh tks
le>kSrs ds le; lekIr gks pqdh FkhA vr% nkok Lohdkj fd;k tkosA
10- foi{kh dh vksj ls fyf[kr rdksZ esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd RSMDC vkSj RSMM ds foy; ds le; ekU;rk izkIr la?k ,oa
izca/ku ds e/; gq;s le>kSrs fnukad 09-07-2003 ds vuqlkj nksuksa laLFkkuksa ds dkexkjksa }kjk LosPNk ls izLrqr fodYi i= ds
vk/kkj ij lekuhdj.k fd;k tk pqdk gSA blds vfrfjDr mDr le>kSrs ds dze esa ekU;rk izkIr la?k ds lkFk gq;s le>kSrs
fnukad 18-08-2004 ds vuq:i lgk;d deZpkfj;ksa ds inuke ,oa inksUufr ds volj l`ftr fd;s x;s gSA izkFkhZ la?k foi{kh
laLFkku }kjk ekU;rk izkIr ugha gS vkSj laLFkku ds cgqla[;d Jfedksa dk izfrfuf/kRo ugha djrk blfy, og Jfedksa dh
lkekU; ekWax mBkus dk vf/kdkj ugha j[krk gSA le>kSrk fnukad 09-07-2003 ij Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ Hkh gLrk{kj djus
okyksa esa Fks vkSj mUgksus viuk fodYi nsdj RSMM ds dkexkjksa dks ns; osru HkRrs vkSj lqfo/kk;s izkIr dj yhA izn'kZ
M-3 vkSj izn'kZ M-4 vkns'kksa }kjk U;k;ky; fu’kDr tu vk;qDr us Hkh izkFkhZ la?k dh ekWx dks mfpr ugha ekuk gSA
mUgksusa vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukfdar U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s%&
1- VªkUliksVZ ,.M MkWd odZlZ ;wfu;u o vU; cuke eqEcbZ iksVZ VªLV o vU; ¼2011½ 1 SCC ¼L&S½ 566-
3228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- gjcVZ lal fyfeVsM cuke n odZesu vkWQ gjcVZ lal fy- o vU; 1977 SCC ¼L&S½ 48-
3- v’kksd o vU; cuke egkjk"Vª LVsV VªkUliksVZ dksiZ- o vU; LLJ II 1997] 1189 ¼cEcbZ½
4- LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky cuke lqHkk"k dqekj pVthZ o vU; ¼2011½ 1 SCC ¼L&S ½ 785
11- eSaus mHk;i{k ds fyf[kr rdksZ miyC/k lk{; ,oa fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu fd;kA bl fookn esa fuEufyf[kr
fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%&
12-
1- D;k lgk;d ,oa ihvksu nksuksa ds dk;Z] {kerk] ;ksX;rk ,oa dk;kZuqHko leku gSa] blfy, ihvksu@pkSdhnkj ,oa lgk;d ds
in vkSj osrueku esa fdlh Hkh izdkj varj ugha gksuk pkfg;s\
------------------izkFkhZ
2- D;k izkFkhZ ;wfu;u foi{kh laLFkku }kjk ekU;rk izkIr ugha gSA blfy, Jfedksa dh ekWx mBkus dks vf/kd`r ugha gS\
-------------------foi{kh
3- D;k ekU;rk izkIr Jfed la?kBu ds lkFk fnukad 09-07-2003 dks mHk;i{k ds chp gq;s le>kSrs ds varxZr RSMM ,oa
RSMDC dkexkjksa dk osru lekuhdj.k dj] RSMDC ds dkexkjksa ls fodYi fy;s tkus ds ckn mUgsa ns; osru HkRrs
o lqfo/kk;s iznku dj ykHk fn;k tk pqdk gSA blfy, mHk;i{k le>kSrs dh 'krksZ ls vkc) gSaA rFkk ;g le>kSrk lgk;dksa
ds osru&eku laca/kh fookn ij izHkkoh gS\
-------------------foi{kh
4- vuqrks"k%&
13- mi;qZDr fcUnqvks esa ls fcUnq la[;k& 1 lgk;d ,oa ihvksu nksuksa dks gh leku osru fn;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gSA foi{kh ds
vuqlkj bl laca/k esa fnukad 09-07-2003 dks ekU;rk izkIr Jfed la?k ,oa foi{kh ds chp gq;s le>kSrs ds izko/kkuksa ls ;g
fookn vkPNkfnr gS] ftlls nksuksa gh i{k vkc) gaSA le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij Jfed ykHk Hkh izkIr dj pqds gSa blfy, ;g
okn Lohdk;Z ugha gSA bl fLFkfr esa ;g mi;qDr izrhr gksrk gS fd fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k& 3 ij gh izFke fofu'p; ikfjr
fd;k tkos] rFkk 'ks"k fcUnqvksa dk fofu'p; bl fcUnq ds fu.kZ; ij fuHkZj djsA fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k& 3 ij foosfpr
fu"d"kZ bl izdkj gSA
14-
15- foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd RSMDC ,oa RSMM ds foy; ds le; ekU;rk izkIr la?k ,oa izca/ku ds chp le>kSrk
fnukad 09-07-2003 dks gqvkA bl le>kSrs ds vuqlj.k esa nksuksa laLFkku ds dkexkjksa }kjk LosPNk ls izLrqr fodYi i=ksa ds
vk/kkj ij lekuhdj.k fd;k tk pqdk gSA fnukad 18-08-2004 dks RSMM odZlZ QsMjs'ku ¼baVd½ o izca/ku ds lkFk gqvk
le>kSrk ykxw dj fn;k x;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh Jh iUuk yky dqekor ,oa Jh gjh’k dqekj O;kl us vius dFkuksa esa blh
rF; dks iq"V djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd lgk;dksa ds laca/k esa fnukad 09-07-2003 dks le>kSrk gks pqdk Fkk blfy, dkexkjksa
ls fodYi i= Hkjok;k x;kA le>kSrs esa lgk;dks ds laca/k esa ckn esa fu.kZ; ysus dk tks mYys[k fd;k x;k gS og dsoy
inuke ds fujkdj.k ls lacaf/kr gSA
16- Lkk{kh Jh iUukyky us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g dgk gS fd foy; ds le; RSMM odZlZ QsMjs'ku ¼baVd½ ekU;rk izkIr
ugha FkhA lk{kh us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd le>kSrk fnukad 09-07-2003 o 18-08-2004 f=i{kh; le>kSrs ugha FksA rFkk
iathd`r Hkh ugha FksA
17- bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ lk{kh Jh fpjath yky us vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ M-5 ,xzhesUV fnukad 09-
07-203 dks gqvk Fkk tks ekU;rk izkIr cgqla[;d ;wfu;u ds lkFk gqvk FkkA bl ,xzhesUV ds le; Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ
tujy lsdzsVjh Hkh ekStwn FksA rFkk ,xzhesUV ij buds gLrk{kj Hkh gSA izn'kZ M-5 le>kSrs ds lkFk Annexure- A ds
:Ik esa Proposed Equivalence of Pay Scale of Workers layXu gSA
18- izkFkhZ lk{kh Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dgk gS fd fnukad 09-07-2003 dks gqvk le>kSrk f=i{kh; ugha
FkkA blds igys ds lHkh le>kSrs f=i{kh; djkj ds ek/;e ls fd;s x;s FksA ;g le>kSrk Hkh {ks=h; Je vk;qDr ds lkFk
gksuk pkfg;s FkkA bl le>kSrs dks jftLVMZ Hkh ugha djok;k x;kA bl le>kSrs esa rks Jfed la?k us daiuh ds fu;e ls Hkh
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3229
de dk] dkexkj&fojks/kh le>kSrk fd;kA fdarq izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 09-07-2003 dks ekU;rk izkIr
;wfu;u ,oa esustesaV ds chp lsVyesaV gqvk Fkk ftlesa og Lo;a Hkh ekStwn Fkk rFkk ftlesa mlds gLrk{kj Hkh gSA lsVyesaV
ds v/khu muls fodYi i= Hkjok;s x;s Fks tks Annexure- B gSA ;}fi dj.kh yky 'kekZ dgrs gS fd ;g fodYi nokc
esa fn;k x;k Fkk ysfdu lkFk gh ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrs gS fd fodYi i= ds vafre iSjk esa ;g fy[kk gS fd fodYi fcuk
fdlh nokc ds] og LosPNk ls ns jgs gSA ;g ckr lgh gSA lk{kh ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd ;g le>kSrk fdz;kfUor gqvk
gSA le>kSrs ij Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj djrs gq;s Jh dj.kh yky dk dFku gS fd lgk;dks ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ckn
esa fy;s tkus dk le>kSrk gqvk FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds inkf/kdkjh Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ }kjk fnukad 09-07-2003
dks ekU;rk izkIr Jfed la?k] ftlds lkFk cgqla[;d Jfed Fks] ,oa izca/ku ds chp le>kSrk lEiUu gksuk Lohdkj fd;k
x;k gSA bl le>kSrs ds iSjk la[;k 9-0 esa le>kSrs ds izoZru ds laca/k esa izko/kku Hkh fd;s x;s gSA ftlesa Li"V fy[kk gqvk
gS fd le>kSrk mUgha dkexkjksa ij ykxw gksxk tks viuh fyf[kr Lohd`fr fnukad 31-07-2003 ds iwoZ ns nsxsa vkSj tks le>kSrs
dks Lohdkj u djrs gq;s fodYi ugha nsxsa oks rRle; ykxw izko/kkuksa ls 'kkflr gksxsaA blh iSjk esa ;g Hkh fy[kk gqvk gS fd
le>kSrs ds laca/k esa ;fn dksbZ fookn fdlh fcUnq ij mRiUu gks rks og izca/ku vkSj Jfed laxBu ds e/; la;qDr :Ik ls
fuLrkfjr dj fy;k tkosxkA bl izdkj ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed la?kBu ds inkf/kdkjh Jh dj.kh yky 'kekZ
}kjk le>kSrs dks Lohdkj djrs gq;s viuk fodYi i= izca/ku ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] tks fcuk fdlh nokc vFkok
vuqfpr izHkko ds fd;k x;kA
19- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; VªkUliksVZ ,.M MkWd odZlZ ;wfu;u o vU; cuke eqEcbZ iksVZ VªLV o vU; esa ;g
vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd le>kSrs dh 'krksZ dks [kqyh vka[kks ls Lohdkj dj ysus ds mijkar] ;g vFkZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd
le>kSrk Lohdkj djus okyks dks ml ij dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA
20- Ekkuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; gjcVZ lal fyfeVsM cuke n odZesu vkWQ gjcVZ lal fy- o vU; esa ;g dgk gS
fd tc ,d ekU;rk izkIr Je laxBu fu;kstd ls dksbZ le>kSrk orkZ djs rks dksbZ dkexkj O;fDrxr :Ik ls mlesa
lfEefyr ugha gksrkA le>kSrs dks iw.kZrk ds lkFk gh Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA tc ,d Jfed laxBu ftls cgqla[;d
Jfedksas dk leFkZu izkIr gks izca/ku ds lkFk dksbZ le>kSrk djsa rks U;k;ky; ,sls le>kSrks esa dksbZ gLr{ksi djus dks vxzlj
ugha gks ldrkA
21- Ekkuuh; cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB us vius fu.kZ; v'kksd o vU; cuke egkjk"Vª LVsV VªkUliksVZ dksiZ- o vU; esa
;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd tc le>kSrs ds varxZr dkexkj ykHkksa dks Lohdkj dj pqds gks rks ,sls le>kSrs dks pqukSrh nsus
ds fy;s dkexkj vf/kd`r ugha gSaA dkexkjks dks ;g vf/kdkj ugha gS fd og le>kSrs ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku dks Lohdkj djus
ds ckn dqN izko/kkuksa dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k dgsaA izca/ku vkSj ekU;rk izkIr Jfed la?k ds e/; gq;s le>kSrs dks oS/k gh
ekuk tk;sxk pkgs mldk dksbZ [k.M] osru Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e ds foijhr gh D;ks u gksA
22- mi;qZDr fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds izdk'k esa ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fnukad 09-07-2003 dks cgqla[;d Jfedksa ds leFkZu
;qDr ,oa ekU;rk izkIr Jfed laxBu rFkk izca/ku ds chp fnukad 09-07-2003 dks gq;s le>kSrs dks Lohdkj djrs gq;s izkFkhZ
la?k us le>kSrs ds varxZr viuk fodYi Hkh izLrqr djrs gq;s le>kSrs ds vuq:Ik izkIr gksus okys ykHk@ifjykHkksa dks izkIr
fd;kA le>kSrs ds varxZr ;|fi ;g izko/kku fd;k x;k fd lgk;d vius orZeku inuke ds varxZr dk;Z djrs jgsxsa vkSj
mudk inuke mfpr le; ds varxZr mudh ;ksX;rk] n{krk vkSj fu;qfDr LFkku ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn
le>kSrs ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh fookn gksxk rks izca/ku vkSj Jfed la?k la;qDr :Ik ls mldk fujkdj.k dj ldsxsaA le>kSrs ds
varxZr pwfda izkFkhZ la?k ds inkf/kdkjh viuk fodYi nsus ds mijkar ykHkkfUor gks pqds gS] blfy, le>kSrs dh fdlh Hkh
'krZ ,oa izko/kku dks pqukSrh nsus ls izkFkhZ i{k vc focaf/kr gSA mHk;i{k le>kSrk fnukad 09-07-2003 dh 'krksZ ls vkc)
izekf.kr gksrs gSA vr% ;g fcUnq foi{kh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
23- mi;qZDr fcUnq ds varxZr pwfda fnukad 09-07-2003 dks gq;s le>kSrs ds izko/kku ls mHk;i{k vkc) izekf.kr gq;s gSa] blfy,
fopkj.kh; fcUnq 1 o 2 ftlesa lgk;d ,oa ihvksu ds osruekuksa esa lekurk vFkok varj dk fcUnq fopkj.kh; Fkk] ij lk{;
dk dksbZ foospu visf{kr ugha gSA blh izdkj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk Jfedksa dh ekWax izLrqr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ij Hkh dksbZ
fofu'p; ikfjr fd;k tkuk vko';d ,oa mfpr ugha gSA
24-
25- pwfda mHk;i{k fnukad 09-07-2003 dks lEiUu gq;s f}i{kh; le>kSrs ls vkc) izekf.kr gq;s gSa] nksuksa gh i{k bl le>kSrs ds
izko/kkuksa dk vuqikyu djus ds nkf;Rok/khu gSaA ;fn dksbZ fookn] fdlh fcUnq vFkok izko/kku ds laca/k esa mRiUu gksrk Hkh gS
rks mldk fujkdj.k mHk;i{k la;qDr :Ik ls fopkj foe'kZ }kjk djus dks Lora= gSaA izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls bl izdkj dksbZ
vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
3230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
27- 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, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1442.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
ररलायंस जनप्पोन लाइफ इन्सुरेंस; एक्सप्रेस िाउस कीपसव प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री
ओमप्रकाि िमाव और श्री िमवीर के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2,
नई दिल्ली, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 212 & 213/2019) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो
केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड - 16025/04/2024-आईआर (एम)-80]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1442.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 212 & 213/2019) 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 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance; Express House Keepers Private Limited and Shri
Omprakash Sharma and Shri Dharamveer which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. Z-16025/04/2024-IR (M)-80]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE HONB’LE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, I.T.O., NEW DELHI–110002.
I.D. No.212/2019
Sh. Omprakash Sharma,
S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan Sharma,
R/o–House No.214, Dichaon Enclave,
Nangloi Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi–110043. …Applicant/Claimant
I.D. No.213/2019
Sh. Dharamvir, S/o Late Sh. Singh Ram,
R/o–House No.303, Badi Chopal Wali Gali,
Auchandi, New Delhi–110039. …Applicant/Claimant
Through–Sh. Santosh Singh, Advocate,
Chamber No.L–8, K.L. Sharma Block, Gate No.2,
Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi–110054.
VERSUS
1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance,
Chamber No.5, 2nd Floor, Local–II, Aggarwal Cyber Plaza,
N.S.P., Pitampura, New Delhi–110034.
2. Express House Keepers Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o –C–7, Nav Shakti Apartment, M.G. Road,
Ghitorni, New Delhi–110030. … Managements/Respondents
AWARD DATED : 14.05.2024
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3231
Item No.- 39 & 40
ID No.- 212/2019 & 213/2019
14.05.2024
Present:
Sh. Santosh, Ld. AR with the workmen.
None for the management.
These are the two cases filed by the different workman against the same management. Having common respondents
and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for purpose of recording the proceedings.
Record perused. Counsel of the workmen submits that both the workmen want to withdraw their cases and made
prayer that they be given liberty to file the same before the tribunal of appropriate government.
In view of the above submission made by AR of the claimant, these claims stand dismissed as withdrawn. Awards are
accordingly passed. Copies of these awards are sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the
I.D. Act. Files are consigned to record room.
Date 14th May, 2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1443.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री डी. रमेि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न. 82/2014) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया
गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल - 17012/59/2013-आईआर (एम)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1443.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 82/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to LIC of India and Shri D. Ramesh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-17012/59/2013-IR (M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 27th day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 82/2014
Between:
Sri D. Ramesh,
S/o D.V.R. Mohan Rao,
D.No.6/84, Near Court,
Banthumalli (M)
Krishna Distt. – 521 324.
… .. Petitioner
AND
The Sr. Divisional Manager,
3232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
Kennedy Road,
Machilipatnam.
… . Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri ,Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K.R.L. Sarma, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/59/2013-IR(M) dated 9.5.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of LIC of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the removal from service of Sri D. Ramesh, Ex.Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Machilipatnam Divisional
Office w.e.f. 21.1.2013 is legal and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 82/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as temporary Sub-Staff on 02.02.2006 and performed as a Peon in
Class- IV Cadre the Respondent office on payment of Rs. 1500/- per month. It is submitted that the Petitioner was
worked continuously without any break, to the entire satisfaction of superior officers. There were no complaints of
what so ever nature against the Petitioner in his entire service. It is submitted that the Respondent has not issued any
appointment letter and issued wage slips from the year 2011 onwards to the Petitioner during his service and
Petitioner used to sign on the vouchers at the time of taking salary and not extended any benefits like provident fund
and ESI, etc. service. It is further submitted that from date of joining the Respondent was in practice of paying the
wages in dummy names to the Petitioner. The Labour Enforcement Officer, who conducted the inspection basing on
the complaint made by the Insurance Employees Union, Machilipatnam, and after inspection of Labour Authorities,
the Respondent paid the wages in individual names and also started paying minimum wages to the Petitioner. It is
submitted that suddenly Petitioner’s services orally terminated on 21.01.2013 without conducting any enquiry, notice
pay, compensation which is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and
against the principles of natural justice and same is nothing but unfair labour practice of the Respondents. It is
submitted that the Petitioner gave a representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Vijayawada, at
Vijayawada, on 28.01.2013, requesting to intervene the matter and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner
into service. It is submitted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada, at Vijayawada issued
notice to the Respondents for joint meetings/ conciliation proceedings. Accordingly the Respondents participated in
joint meetings and submitted their reply, denying all the contents made in the Petitioners representation. The Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central ), Vijayawada, at Vijayawada closed conciliation meetings and sent the failure report
to the Government of India. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent by terminating the Petitioner from
service w.e.f. 21.01.2013 is illegal and unjustified. The termination is violation of the Sec 25 F, G and H of the
Industrial Dispute Act. The Respondent was not given any notice and also not given any retrenchment compensation
and Petitioners last drawn salary was Rs.270/- per day at the time of termination. The Respondent wrote a letter to
the District of peons on Employment Officer on 16.01.2013 for engagement temporary basis in place of 53 permanent
vacancies. It is submitted that one side they calling from Employment Exchange for engagement of peons on
temporary basis and another side they terminated the service of the Petitioner from 21.01.2013 without conducting
any enquiry and without any notice or notice pay. It is nothing but unfair labour practice adapted by the Respondent.
It is submitted that the Petitioner never asked for regularization. It is submitted that entire family is depending on the
Petitioners income and after termination of the Petitioner, they are facing untold problems and hardship and the
Petitioner is the only bread earner in the family. In spite of his best efforts the Petitioner could not secure any other
alternate employment and the Petitioner is unemployed from the date of termination. It is submitted that the
Insurance Employees Union made complaints to the Labour Authorities, CBI and Central Vigilance commission with
regard to unfair labour practice adopted by the Respondents and basing on complaints made by the Insurance
Employees Union all the concerned departments investigated the matter and submitted their report to concerned
officials holding that the Respondents are adopted unfair labour practice up to 2011. By perusing the reports it is
clearly established that the Petitioner was victimized by the Respondents. It is therefore prayed to this Hon'ble
Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award by set aside oral termination dated 21.1.2013 and directing the
Respondents herein to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and with all
other attendant benefits.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3233
3.
Notice served upon the Respondent and in reply to the notice Respondent, appeared. But he did not file any
counter. Therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the Respondent vide order dated 6.11.2017. Petitioner in
support of his claim, has filed the chief statement affidavit wherein he reiterated the averments made in the claim
statement. Further, Petitioner has also filed documents in evidence which have been exhibited as Ex.W1 toW11.
From the perusal of documents filed by the Petitioner in evidence goes to reveal that upon the orders of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, LIC of India conducted one time special examination for recruitment of Peons from out of
temporary Peons who had already worked for more than 5 years as 18.1.2011. The examination was conducted on
26/6/2011. The complainant has represented to LIC of India to consider his candidature for those temporary Peons
vacancy as he has already worked for more than 5 years as an 18.1.2011. Further, Petitioner submitted that as regards
illegality committed by the LIC of India in engagement of workman as well in the matter of payment of their wages
in other dummy names, the matter was investigated by Central Vigilance Commission and a report was submitted
that CBI, has already investigated in the matter and reported malafide on the part of the office procedure adopted by
their predecessors and there were no clear guidelines on the subject. Further, it has been mentioned there in that
Commission has already advised CVO, LIC of India to fix accountability of officers found responsible for lapses in
process of recruitment of peons and seek FSA of Commission if the concerned officers come within normal
jurisdiction of the Commission. Further, the Petitioner has also filed the copy of his Passbook of account of Andhra
Bank, which corroborates the averment of the claim statement. Ex.W11 is the copy of the salary voucher which
further corroborates the plea of the Petitioner.
4.
Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is established that the Petitioner had worked
as temporary sub-staff on the post of Peon in Class-IV cadre in the Respondent office on the payment of Rs.1500/-
per month and he was not issued any appointment letter but he was issued with the wage slip only from the year 2011
onwards. Earlier Petitioner used to sign on the voucher at the time of taking salary and no benefits of PF, ESI was
extended to him. Further, Petitioner has submitted that from the date of joining Respondent was in practice of
payment paying wages in dummy names of the Petitioner. The Labour Enforcement Officer who conducted the
inspection basing on the complaint made by the Insurance Employees Union, Machilipatnam against Respondent LIC
of India and after inspection of labour authorities, the Respondent used to pay the wages in individual names and also
started paying minimum wages to the Petitioner. Further, Petitioner has submitted that the action of the Respondent
by terminating the services of the Petitioner with effect from. 21.1.2013 is illegal and unjustified. The termination was
in violation of provision of section 25F.
5.
The claim of the Petitioner that he was appointed as temporary staff class-IV on 2.2.2006 in Respondent
office is corroborated and established by the oral and documentary evidence produced by him in support of his
claim. Petitioner’s plea in claim statement as well as oral and documentary evidence produced by him on record
remained unrebutted and uncontraverted in the absence of counter of the Respondent. Therefore, on the basis of
unrebutted evidence of the Petitioner, on record, I am of the view that the claim of the Petitioner that he has been
terminated from service in violation of the provision of section 25 F is liable to be accepted. Therefore it is held that
Petitioner has been terminated in contravention of the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
6.
As far as the plea of Petitioner for reinstatement in the employment of the Respondent is concerned, in this
context, Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, when the termination of the Workman has been found by Labour Court,
in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F of the ID Act, workman not necessarily be liable to be reinstated into
the employment. In alternative the compensation to the Workman for such termination would be appropriate relief.
Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement in the employment of Respondent is not acceptable.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal No.10957/2015 AIR 2014 SCC
1188, Hon’ble Court have held:-
“It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of
retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,
however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has
completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been
found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between
a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in
Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12], wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the
aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they
worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and
instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice."
23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with
full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may
be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and or malafide and/or by way
of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage
worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages
3234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.
Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above and
in the facts and circumstances of the case in view the total period of the employment of the Workman under the
Respondent Organization, the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- would be appropriate relief to the workman in lieu of
reinstatement. Therefore, the claim statement of the Petitioner deserves to be allowed accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as discussed above, I am of the
considered view that the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri D. Ramesh is
held illegal and unjustified as being in violation of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Since he has been terminated from
the service in the year 2013, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,50,000(Rupees One Lakh
Fifty Thousand only)from Respondent against his illegal termination in lieu of reinstatement. Thereby the
Respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Petitioner Sri D. Ramesh within three
months after receiving copy of this award, with all attendant benefits due to the Petitioner, failing which he has to
pay the interest of 12% p.a. 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 27th day of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri D. Ramesh
MW1: NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of reference order dt.9.5.2014
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of lr. from Respondent to District Employment Officer dt.1.1.2013
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of inspection report by the ALC(C), Vijayawada dt.2.2.2012
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of CBI report dt.3.5.2012
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of enquiry report submitted by the DCLC(C), Bangalore dt. 14.6.2012
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of inspection report by the central Vigilance Commission dt. 26.2.2013
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of wage slip for m/o November, 2012
Ex.W8: Photostat copy of list of temporary workers
Ex.W9: Photostat copy of Andhra Bank Pass Book of Petitioner from 8.10.2011 to 9.7.2013
Ex.W10: Photostat copy of statement showing the wages paid to Petitioner in dummy names
Ex.W11: Photostat copy of statement showing the payment voucher number from July 2011 to January, 2013
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1444.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
मेससव िी. आई. जसक्योररटी ऑफ़ (आई) प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससव एन.वी. एस. कंस्ट्रक्िंस; मेससव एफएल जस्ट्मड्थ जमनरल्स
प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससव राष्ट्रीय इस्ट्पात जनगम जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री बेवरा एसवारा राव के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िवष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंचाट (एम.पी. न. 1/2016)
को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 18.07.2024
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. िेड - 16025/03/2024-आईआर (एम)-3]
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3235
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1444.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (M. P. No. 1/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s G.I. Security Office (I) Private Limited; M/s N.V.S. Constructions; M/s FL Smith Minerals Private
Limited; M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and Shri Bevara Eswara Rao which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2024..
[No. Z-16025/03/2024-IR (M)-3]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
Present: -
Shri Irfan Qamar,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of May, 2024
M.P. No. 1/2016
Between:
Sri Bevara Eswara Rao,
S/o Late Ramulu,
R/o H.No.21-30-7, Musala Naidu Palem
Village, Pedagantyada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam – 530 044.
… ..Petitioner
And
1.
Managing Director,
M/s.G.I. security of (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
Sukshithi Apartments, Flat No.8/B,
No.19, Bulligunj circular Road,
Kolkatta -19.
2.
Managing Director,
M/s. N.V.S. Constructions,
D.No.65-6-762/8,
1st floor, Gohsiya Mazid,
New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-26.
3.
Managing Director,
M/s. FL Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd.,
Near Centring Plant Area, Repair Shop,
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.
4.
Executive Director(Works),
M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd,
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,
Visakhapatnam – 530 031.
…..
Respondents
Appearance:
3236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the Petitioner :
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent
:
Sri Dogga Chiranjeevi, Advocate
ORDER
This petition has been filed by Sri Bevara Eswara Rao, Ex. Security Guard, under Sec.33 C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the averment that the Respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,35,160/-
towards the unpaid overtime wages, weekly offs, national and festival holidays, gratuity and retrenchment
compensation from 2001 to 31.3.2016.
2.
That the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was appointed as security Guard in the 1st Respondent
organization on 17.3.2001. 1st Respondent organization is a man power supplying contractor and having contracts
with several private companies for supply of man power and as per instructions of 1st Respondent organization, the
Petitioner has worked as Security Guard at 3rd Respondent organization from 8.12.2010 to 11.9.2011. During this
period Respondent No.1 and 3 extracted work from Petitioner 12 hours per day and for that the 1st Respondent raised
bill and received for 12 hours per day from 3rd Respondent. But the 1st Respondent paid 8 hours per day pay to the
Petitioner and not paid the overtime wages. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent has not paid weekly offs wages and
public holidays wages during this period of work i.e., form 8.12.2010 to 11.9.2011 to the Petitioner. Further,
Petitioner submits that 3rd Respondent cancelled the contract of 1st Respondent w.e.f. 12.9.2011. The 3rd Respondent
gave a new contract to the 2nd Respondent without settling accounts of workers from 1st Respondent. The
Petitioner’s services along with co-workers were utilized by the 3rd Respondent through 2nd Respondent from
12.9.2011 to 30.3.2016 and while so, the 3rd Respondent removed the services of Petitioner along with other workers,
without any notice or notice pay and without payment of compensation is unjust, arbitrary and against the principles
of natural justice and also against the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. It is submitted that at the time of term the
Petitioner was getting Rs.334/- per day as wages. Further, Petitioner submits that after illegal termination, he made
a representation to the RLC(C), Visakhapatnam to intervene the matter for payment of monetary benefits. In turn,
the RLC(C) issued notice to the Respondent to attend joint meeting on 9.6.2016, but only 2nd Respondent attended
and without any calculation paid some amounts o the Petitioner and the rest of the Respondent did not attend the
joint meeting. Further, Petitioner submits that he is entitled to receive the overtime wages, festival holiday wages,
weekly off wages for the period from 8.12.2010 to 11.9.2011 and also entitled to receive the compensation and
gratuity for 15 years of the service form 17.3.2001 to 30.3.2016 as mentioned in the charge given in the petition.
Thereby Petitioner’s claim for,
Overtime wages
Rs.
64,218/-
Weekly off wages:40 x Rs.231/-per day
Rs.
9,240/-
For national & festival holidays wages:
6 x Rs.231/- per day
Rs.
1,386/-
Compensation:
15 days per year x Rs.334/- per day x 16 years
Rs.
80,160/-
Gratuity:
15 days per year x Rs.334/- per day x 16 years
Rs.
80,160/-
Grand Total
:
Rs.
2,35,164/-
3.
Notice served upon the Respondents. Despite service of the notice through registered post acknowledgement
due, Respondent No.1 did not turn up nor did not file any objection against the petition. Therefore, the case is set ex-
parte against Respondent No.1. Only Respondent No.2 has filed counter, rest of the Respondents has not filed any
counter. Therefore, matter proceeded against the rest of the Respondents.
4.
Respondent No.2 in his counter has contended that the allegation made in the petition are not considered
correct and are hereby denied. Further, It is contended that Petitioner is put to strict proof of all such allegations that
are not expressly traversed herein. Respondent contended that the petition is misconceived and filed only with an
intention to harass the Respondent No.2 thereby make wrongful gain and cause wrongful loss to the Respondent
No.2. It is submitted that the Petitioner made a representation to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Visakhapatnam to intervene the matter for payment of monitory benefits. In turn the Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central), Visakhapatnam issued notice to the respondents, to attend joint meeting on 9.6.2016 is true and correct.
The Respondent No.2 submits that he attend the meeting before the Regional Labour Commissioner (central),
Visakhapatnam and settled the matter before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam by giving
an amount of Rs.31,000/- ( Rupees Thirty One Thousand Only) to the Petitioner. The Respondent also submits that
the Petitioner himself admitted in the petition that the Respondent No.2 paid amount to the Petitioner before the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam. It is submitted that the allegation that Respondent No.2
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3237
paid the amount to Petitioner without any calculation are not true and correct. The Respondent No.2 submits that the
he had cleared all the amount which is entitled by the Petitioner before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),
Visakhapatnam and the Petitioner received the amount given by the Respondent No.2 and he satisfied with the
amount for which he is entitled and kept silent for some days and again he made this petition by stating that the
Respondent No.2 paid the amount to him without calculation. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner has not
mentioned the amount of Rs.31,000/-( Rupees Thirty One Thousand Only) which he has received from the
Respondent No.2 at the time of settlement before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Visakhapatnam. It
is submitted that the Respondent never delayed any monthly salary to the Petitioner at any stage and the Respondent
paid all the salary and other benefits on every month without any delay. The Respondent No.2 submits that a full
settlement was taken place before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) Visakhapatnam between the
Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner. Further, it is submitted that he need not pay any more amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 submits that he filed a copy of settlement along with this counter. Therefore, prayed to
dismiss the petition with costs.
5.
Petitioner in support of his claim has filed photocopies of eight documents Ex.W1 to W8 including ESI
Card, where he was making subscription regularly and also filed his identity card. Ex.W1 is representation to
RLC(C), Ex.W2 is the notice issued by the RLC(C) to the Respondents, Ex.W3 is the identity card issued by the
Respondent No.3, Ex.W4 is the ESI card, Ex.W5 is the PF slip, Ex.W6 is the Memorandum of Settlement, Ex.W7 is
the Pay slip and Ex.W8 is the E.P.F.S. statement for the year 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. Respondent did not examine any
witness in support of his contention. But, Respondent has filed photocopy of Memorandum of Settlement dated
9.6.2016 between the parties before the RLC(C) and also filed the receipts of full and final benefits paid to the
Petitioner, i.e., 1) for Erection conveyor equipments work, for April, 2009, full & Final benefits, 2) statutory bonus
for April, 2009, 3) for Erection conveyor equipments work, for September, 2011- full & final bonus and 4) for
Erection conveyor equipments work, for September, 2011 full & final bonus.
6.
Perused the record. Admittedly, the settlement has been executed on dated 9.6.2016 between the Petitioner
and the Respondent and in terms of settlements, an amount of Rs.31000/- has been paid to the Petitioner, Sri B.
Eswara Rao as full and final settlement of all his dues i.e.,, unpaid wages, overtime allowance for 7 months and the
workman Sri B. Eswara Rao also agreed to the same. Further, it was also agreed that the Management to settle the
EPF account on receipt of application from the workman and to issue one service certificate for the services rendered.
Further, it was also agreed that Petitioner workman shall not raise any kind of further dispute either before the
Industrial forum or before the Court of Law. Further, this settlement has been signed by both the parties as well as by
RLC(C), Visakhapatnam.
Sec.18 of the I.D. Act, 1947 contain the provision of binding nature of settlements and awards:-.
“(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of
conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. “
Therefore, in view of the provision contained u/s. Sec.18 of I.D. Act, 1947, the settlement dated 9.6.2016 arrived at
between the parties is binding upon both the parties i.e., Petitioner’s as well as Respondent. As the settlement dated
9.2.2011 has arrived at between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2, and full and final settlement of all dues has
been paid to the Petitioner, under the settlement. Therefore, Petitioner can not be permitted to raise dispute,
regarding overtime wages, compensation in terms of his service. Respondent has also filed copy of receipts
payment of full and final benefits to Petitioner’s document No.1, is a receipt of full and final benefits for Erection
conveyor equipments work, for April, 2009, wherein at Sl.No.4, Petitioner’s name is mentioned and against his
name a payment of Rs.29,207/- is entered. Document No.2, is receipt payment of statutory bonus for April, 2009,
and at Sl.No.4, paid amount is entered Rs.6734/-. Further, receipt No.3 shows name of Petitioner at Sl.No.7 and
against his name payment of Rs.39,660/- is entered for Erection conveyor equipments work, for September, 2011-
full & final bonus. Receipt No.4 shows his name at Sl.No.5 against an amount of Rs.10,515/- for Erection conveyor
equipments work, for September, 2011 full and final payment of bonus.
The provision of Sec.33C(2) provides that,
“ (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of
being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at
which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,
be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; within a period
not exceeding three months Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or
expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may
think fit.”
Thus, on the plain reading of wording of Sec.33C(2), it is seen that, any workman is entitled to receive from the
employer any money or any benefit if any question arises as to the amount of money due, then the question may be
decided by such Labour Court, meaning thereby if right to get the money on the basis of settlement or award is not
established no money/amount of money will be due. If it is established that it is to be found out it may be by mere
3238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
calculation as to what is the amount due. The following decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is relevant in
this regard:-
In the case of Union of India and another Vs.Kankuben and others, 2006 LLR 494 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India have held:-
“Whenever a workman is entitled to receive from his employer any money or benefit which is capable of being
computed in terms of money and which he is entitled to receive from his employer and is denied of such benefit can
approach Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of the Act. The benefit sought to be enforced under section 33-C (2) of
the Act is necessarily a pre-existing benefit or one flowing from a pre-existing right. The difference between a pre-
existing right or benefit on one hand and the right or benefit, which is considered just and fair on the other hand is
vital. The former falls within jurisdiction of Labour Court exercising powers under section 33-C (2) of the Act while
the latter does not.”
The perusal of the Ex.W1 would reveal that Petitioner had moved an application dated 31.3.2016 addressed to the
RLC(C), Visakhapatnam with the prayer to direct the Respondent regarding his payment from Respondent towards
overtime allowance, weekly off wages, national and festival holidays wages, compensation and gratuity for the
period from 8.12.2010 to 11.9.2011. RLC(C) issued notice to the contractor M/s. G.I. Security of (I) Pvt, Ltd.,
Kolkata, as well as M/s. N.V.S. Constructions, Visakhapatnam. Respondent No.2 M/s. N.V.S. Constructions
appeared before the RLC(C) for conciliation proceeding and vide document Ex.W6 settlement arrived at before the
RLC(C), Visakhapatnam in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. FL Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd., and
M/s. N.V.S. Constructions (Contractor of M/s. RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant) and Sri B. Eswara Rao,, Ex.
Security Guard, over alleged illegal termination of his services and due amounts. Further, Ex.W6 further delineates
that the terms of settlement were reduced into writing on dated 9.6.2016 as agreed by the parties. The terms of
settlement arrived at between parties on 9.6.2016 reads as follows:-
“1)
It is agreed by the Management that an amount of Rs..31,000/-(Rupees Thirty one thousand only) shall be
paid to Shri B. Eswara Rao, the workman as full and final settlement of all his dues i.e., unpaid wages and OT
Allowance for 07 months if any, in shape of Demand draft or cheque in the name of the workman within 3 (three)
days from the date of signing the Settlement. The workman agreed for the same.
2)
It is also agreed by the Management to settle the EPF Account on receipt of application from the workman
and also to issue one service Certificate for the services rendered.
3)
It is also agreed by Shri B. Eswara Rao, the workman that he shall not raise any kind of further dispute
either before the Industrial forum or before the Court of Law.”
At the foot of settlement all the parties to settlement as well as RLC(C) has affixed their signatures. Thus, the claim
of the Petitioner as mentioned in his petition u/s 33C(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 i.e., overtime allowance , weekly off
wages, national and festival holidays wages, compensation and gratuity has already been settled through settlement
Ex.W6. Therefore, as per provision of Sec.18 of the I.D. Act, 1947, the settlement Ex.W6 arrived at by agreement
between the Petitioner workman and Respondent is binding on both parties. However, the Petitioner in his petition
has no where alleged that the terms of settlement as mentioned in Ex.W6 has not been complied with by the
Respondent No.2 nor challenged validity of the settlement. Further, Respondent in support of his contention has
filed documents, the photocopy of Memorandum of Settlement, dated 9.6.2016 between the parties before the
RLC(C) and also filed the receipts of full and final benefits paid to the Petitioner, i.e., 1) for Erection conveyor
equipments work, for April, 2009, full & Final benefits, 2) statutory bonus for April, 2009, 3) for Erection conveyor
equipments work, for September, 2011- full & final bonus and 4) for Erection conveyor equipments work, for
September, 2011 full & final bonus, these receipts further goes to show that the terms of settlement vide Ex.W6 dated
9.6.2016, one time settlement payment has been made.
In the case of National Engineers Industries v. St. of Rajasthan Civil Appeal No. 16832/1996 dated 01.12.1999,
three judges bench of Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“In Ram Pukar Singh and Ors. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and Qrs. [1994] 6 SCC 145 this Court said that
a settlement arrived at between the management and the sole recognised union of workmen under section 12(3) read
with section 18 of the Act would be binding on all the workmen whether members of the union or not.”
Therefore, in view of the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, that settlement remains binding upon both parties.
7.
The claim of the Petitioner regarding over time wages from 8.12.2010 to 11.9.2011 amounting to
Rs.64,218/-, the weekly off wages for the period from 8.12.2010 to 11.9.2011 amounting to Rs.9,240/- and regarding
national and festival holidays wages amounting to Rs.1,386/-, regarding all these categories of claims has been
satisfied through the settlement dated 9.6.2016 between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 before the RLC(C). As
far as the claim for compensation for illegal termination is concerned, that can not be permitted under the provision of
Sec.33C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Since Petitioner has not filed any copy of the award or order of the competent
court to declare him for entitlement to claim compensation for his illegal termination from the employment.
Therefore, the claim of compensation for illegal termination is not existing right /claim on the date of filing the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3239
petition under Sec.33C(2). Hence, it is not maintainable under aforesaid provision. Further, regarding claim of
gratuity Petitioner has claimed the gratuity for 16 years but as per the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondent
No.3 organization has cancelled the contract of Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 12.9.2011 and gave the contract to the
Respondent No.2, meaning thereby that the Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the gratuity amount up to the period of
12.9.2011. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion, the Petitioner’s petition for the claim of the dues is liable
to be allowed partly.
ORDER
Therefore, in view of the discussion as above, the Petitioner’s application u/s 33C(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 for
claiming the overtime dues, weekly off wages and national/festival holidays wages and compensation, is dismissed.
The claim of the Petitioner for gratuity for the period upto 12.9.2011 from the date of his appointment with
Respondent No.1 is allowed. The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay the dues of gratuity as claimed in the petition,
to the Petitioner Sri Bevara Eswara Rao, within two months from the receipt of this order, failing which he has to pay
the dues with interest @ 18% @12%.
Ordered accordingly.
Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
16th day of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri B. Eswara Rao
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of representation by the applicant to RLC(C), Visakhapatnam dt.31.3.2016
Ex.W2:
Photostat copy of notice issued by RLC(C), Visakhapatnam to the Respondents dt.19.5.2016
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of identity card issued by Respondent No.3
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of ESI identity card
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of PF slip
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement dt.9.6.2016
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of pay slip.
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of E.P.F.S. statement for the year 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011.
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 23 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1445.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
;
, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और श्री
, कामगार, के बीच अिुबंि
में गिगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अगिकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-जयपुर,पंचाट (संदर्ि संख्या 82/2005) को जैसा गक
अिुलग्नक में गदखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 23.07.2024 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल - 42012/174/2004-आईआर (सी-II)]
दिलीप कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2024
S.O. 1445.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 82/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
3240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court – Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Area Manager, Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi; Assistant Director, Central Excise Intelligence, Jaipur,
and Shri Dilip Singh, Jadoun, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 23.07.2024.
[No. L-42012/174/2004-IR (C-II)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
Reference No. L-42012/174/2004-IR (CM-II) Dated: 29.06.2005
VIII]
VI,
A
Whether the action of the management of Central Excise Intelligence Department, Jaipur in
terminating the services of Shri Dilip Singh Jadon w.e.f. 28.02.2004 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3245
(j)
III-
I, o II,
III-
A
F, G o
H
,
नई दिल्ली, 23 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1446.—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 –
] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf” kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/86/2013-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2024
S.O. 1446.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/82/2013) 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 10/07/2024.
[No. L-22012/86/2013 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
3246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NO. CGIT/LC/R/82/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Sh. Shiv Kumar S/o. Late Markandey,
At- Ward No.9, Near Shiv Mandir, PO Jhagrakhand
Tah. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Hasdeo Area (SECL), PO Jhgarakhand
Tah.- Manendragarh, Distt.- Korea (CG)
The Managing Director
South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Basat Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG)
Management
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 25th day of June-2024)
As per letter dated 18/07/2013 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-22012/86/2013/IR(CM-II) dt. 18/07/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), through its Chief
General Manager, Hasdeo Area and Managing Director, SECL, Bilaspur (CG) in imposing the penalty of
dismissal from service vide order daed 31.03.2005 upon the workman Shri Shiv Kumar, Line Mazdoor, is legal,
proper an d just ? If not, to what relief the workman 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, he was served a charge sheet on 07.09.2004 and after his representation on
charge sheet was found not sufficient by management, a departmental enquiry was ordered against the workman for
the charge of habitual unauthorized absence from work within the period 1999 to 2004. His presence on duty was 158
days in 1999, 81 days in 2000, 109 days in 2001, 27 days in 2002 and 0 days in 2003 & 2004. The enquiry was
conducted against rules and procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report wrongly holding him guilty
for willful absence from work and thus holding the charge of misconduct proved against the workman. The
Disciplinary Authority also wrongly dismissed the workman by passing the punishment order which is
disproportionate to the charge. He prayed that setting aside his dismissal, he be reinstated with all back wages and
benefits.
Rebutting the allegations of the workman, management has taken a case in their written statement of defense
that the workman was a habitual absentee. He was on duty only for 158 days in 1999, 81 days in 2000, 109 days in
2001, 27 days in 2002 and 0 days in 2003 & 2004. A charge sheet dated 18.03.2004 was issued against the workman
for the charge of unauthorized and willful absence from work. The workman did not submit his reply, hence vide
order passed on 07.09.2004 management directed to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. The workman appeared
and unconditionally admitted the charge. The management representative produced witnesses during the enquiry. The
defense of the workman during the enquiry was that he was ill during this period which was not found correct and the
Enquiry Officer filed his report holding the charge proved against the workman. The Disciplinary Authority, after
considering the representation of the workman on enquiry report, awarded the punishment of dismissal from service
which is not disproportionate to the charge.
Following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 26.11.2015 :-
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper or not?
2. Whether the misconduct alleged is proved from the enquiry ?
3. Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charge ?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3247
4. Relief to which the workman is entitled ?
Issue No.-1 was taken as preliminary issue and was decided on the basis of evidence against the workman
vide order dated 13.06.2019 holding the departmental enquiry legal and proper. This order is part of this Award.
Parties were directed to file their evidence on remaining issues in form of documents/affidavit. They did not
file any evidence.
None appeared for workman at the stage of argument, no written argument was filed, I have heard argument
of learned Counsel learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair, assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kewat for management. I have
gone through the record.
Issue No.-2 :-
Learned Senior Counsel for management has referred to the enquiry papers, specially the admission of the
workman and the statement of management witness in support of his argument that the charge was rightly held proved
by the Enquiry Officer.
Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the standard of proof required for charge to be proved in a
departmental enquiry is not the same as it is in a criminal trial.
The settled proposition of law is that the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a
departmental enquiry. Following judgments are being referred to in this respect.
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
3248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. "
I have gone through the enquiry papers and of the considered view that the admission of the workman
corroborated with record and statement of management witness prove the charges.
Accordingly, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the charges against the workman are held proved,
issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3 :-
Learned Senior Counsel for management has referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Dilip Uttam Jaya Bhai (2022) 2 SCC 696 and has submitted that
integrity is the core value that has to be maintained by an employee while in service. No employer can afford to have
an employee on its rolls who has no integrity left in him.
The settled proposition of law is that the punishment can be interfered by this Tribunal only when it is so
disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Following judgments are being referred
to in this respect.
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 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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3249
“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 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.”
Charges proved are that the workman willfully absented himself from duty between the period 1999 to 2004.
He was absent from duty for the whole period of 2003 & 2004. No employer can afford such absenteeism. Hence,
holding the punishment not disproportionate to the charge, issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-4 :_
On the basis of findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-
A W A R D
Holding the action of management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) through its Chief General
Manager, Hasdeo Area and Managing Director, SECL, Bilaspur (CG) in imposing the penalty of dismissal from
service vide order dated 31.03.2005 upon the workman Shri Shiv Kumar, Line Mazdoor, is legal, proper and just,
the workman is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
3250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
DATE:- 25/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1447.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय राष्ट्रीय सिकारी उपभोिा मिासंघ जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह –
] जबलपुर ds
iapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks izdkf” kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2024
S.O. 1447.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/85/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of National Cooperative Consumers’Federation of India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 10/07/2024.
[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/R/85/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Sanjay Pandya,
3, Vyas Fala, Juni,
Indore (M.P.) – 452007
Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager,
National Co-operative Consumer’s Federation of India Limited,
12-A, Dayal Complex, Zone-II, M.P. Nagar, Near FCI Office,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 25th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 01/11/2019 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 J-1(1-
7)/2019-IR dt. 01/11/2019. The dispute under reference related to :-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3251
“ Whether the action of the management of National Cooperative Consumers’ Federation of India Ltd.
In terminating the service of workman Shri Sanjay Pandya, Data Entry Operator by way of compulsory
retirement w.e.f. 09.10.2015 is justified? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled for ? ”
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: 25/06/2024
नई दिल्ली, 23 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1448.—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–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी-आर/
/
) dks izdkf” kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/22/2010-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2024
S.O. 1448.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/09/2011) 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 10/07/2024.
[No. L-22012/22/2010 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/09/2011
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Saroj Kumar Sahu
& 91 other Security Guards
NCL Hqs Bairak, PO/Distt.- Singrauli
Madhya Pradesh
Workman
3252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs
The CMD
Northern Coalfields Limited,
At/PO/Distt.- Singrauli (M.P.)
Management
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 24th day of June-2024)
As per letter dated 06/01/2011 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-22012/22/2010 IR (CM-II) dt. 06/01/2011. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether, the action of the management of the Northern Coalfields Limited in terminating the services of
Shri Saroj Kumar Sahu and 91 others Security Personnel (Contract Workers) is legal and justified ? To what relief
the claimants are entitled for ?”
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 case of the workmen is mainly that they were appointed to work with the management of National
Coalfields Limited (in short ‘NCL’) under the garb of contract workers through a contractor which is camouflage to
deny these workmen their legally admissible dues and rights. These workmen worked in the premises of management
of NCL, provided accommodation and other facilities by NCL, their provident fund contribution was deposited by
NCL and they worked on the directions of officers of NCL. They worked continuously from 2005 to 2010 without
any service break but their services were terminated without any notice or compensation which is against law and
arbitrary on the part of management. They have sought their reinstatement with all back wages and benefits, setting
aside their termination.
The case of management is mainly that these workmen are contract workers as this fact is disclosed from the
reference itself. There is no employer-employee relationship between them and NCL they have not been appointed by
NCL. The management of NCL is a licensed principal employer and engages contract workers for various
miscellaneous works. As many as five contractors details given in para 17 of written statement were engaged from
June 1998 to January 2010 by management for executing various miscellaneous works. These workmen were not
employed by management and were not terminated by management. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the
reference be answered against the workmen. In evidence, the workmen side filed two affidavits of workmen Dinendra
Prasad and Saroj Kumar Sahu who never turned up for cross examination. Management filed affidavit of its witness
who was not cross examined by workmen side inspite of opportunity given as no one turned up for workmen.
At the stage of argument also none appeared for argument from workmen side, hence argument of learned
Counsel for management were heard.
Reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand. The initial burden to prove the fact that the
contract was a sham transaction and camouflage is on workmen side. By way of filing only two affidavits against
which the deponents did not turn up for cross examination, the workmen side is held to have miserably failed in
discharging this burden.
On the other hand, the case of management is proved by uncross examined affidavit of management witness.
Hence, on the basis of above discussion, holding the claim of workmen side not proved, the reference
deserves to be answered against the workmen and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 24/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1449.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एयर इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
- सह -
] कोलकाता
ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf” kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 27, 2024/श्रावण 5, 1946
3253
[सं. ,y-11012/11/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2024
S.O. 1449.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, KolKata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Air
India Limited and their workmen received by the Central Government on 22/07/2024
[[No. L-11012/11/2024 – IR (CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA
Present
JUSTICE K. D. BHUTIA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.42 of 2014
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of
Air India Limited
And
Their workmen
Appearances:
For the first party Management :
Mr.Lancy D’Souza, Adv.
For the second party workmen
:
Absent..
Dated the 27th day of September, 2023
AWARD
Today has been fixed for evidence from the side of the union, but none appears from the side of the union
today too like on the previous dates. On the other hand, management is represented by its learned counsel Mr.Lancy
D’souza and Ms.Deepika Agrawal and who files their fresh vakalatnama. Let it be taken on record.
Learned counsel for the management submits that union has raised the present dispute when the concerned
workmen who were paid excess overtime allowance were directed to refund the same. That concerned authorities of
the management informed that in the due course, management has been able to recover the excess overtime payment
from those concerned workmen. He further submits out of 24 workmen whose cause have been raised by the union 23
of them have already been retired except P.S.Bhattacharjee and perhaps for the above reason the union is no more
interested and has not been pursuing with the present dispute raised by it. Therefore, he prays for passing necessary
order.
It appears the Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide order no.L-11012/11/2014 (IRM(CM-I)) dated
15.5.2014, has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication in exercise of the power conferred under
section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the I.D.Act:-
“Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd. for recovery of overtime allowances paid to the
staff of commercial department (passenger handling unit) at Kolkata for the period from April 2010 to March 2011 is
legal and justified? To what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
In the record apart from statement of claim of the union I do not find any oral or documentary evidence to
substantiate the claim or that concerned workmen were paid lawful overtime allowances for the period from April,
2010 to March, 2011 or that the claim of the management to recover the same from those concerned workmen is
illegal and not proper.
3254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 27, 2024/SRAVANA 5, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further, non-appearance of the workmen since 30.10.2019 and their failure to pursue the dispute espoused by
them an inference can be drawn that the union is no more interested to proceed with the hearing of the case or perhaps
the excess amount paid to them wrongfully has already been recovered by the management as submitted by learned
counsel for the management.
In view of the above, no dispute award is passed and reference case no.42 of 2014 is disposed of.
Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer
1`
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: 2024.07.31 15:14:20 +05'30'