4429 GI/2024
(3255)
236रजिस्ट्री 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. 30]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 28—अगस्ट् त 3, 2024, िजनवार/श्रावण 6—श्रावण 12, 1946
No. 30]
NEW DELHI, JULY 28—AUGUST 3, 2024, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 6– SHRAVANA 12, 1946
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक, लोक जिका त त ा ृेंिन मंत्राल
(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रजल, 2024
का.आ. 1450.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर/38/ृोल-2 दिनांक 29.05.2023, गषि जवभाग, मंत्राल मु् भवन, मुंबई के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से मेससि कॉक्स एंड ककंग्स जलजमटेड, श्री अि अिीत ृीटर केरकर, प्रमोटर/जनिेिक, सुश्री उर्ििला केरकर,
प्रमोटर/जनिेिक, श्री अजनल ंडेलवाल-सीएफओ, श्री ृेसी ृटेल, जनिेिक, श्री एंटनी गुड, जनिेिक, श्री मिाललंगा
नारा णन, जनिेिक, अन् अज्ञात व्यजि ों और अज्ञात बैंक अजिकाठर ों के ज लाफ ृुजलस स्ट्टेिन िािर, मुंबई में ृंिीकषत
दकए गए प्रकरण सी.आर. सं् ा 0657/2021 दिनांक 23.06.2021 से संबंजित अृराि(िों), िो भारती िंड संजिता,
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-11092024-257063
CG-DL-W-11092024-257063
3256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1860 (1860 की 45) की िारा 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 की
49) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िण्डनी िैं, का अन्वेपण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा
उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न
दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का
जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/57/2023-एवीडी-II)]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 26th April, 2024
S.O. 1450.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Notification No: CBI 2021/CR/ 38/ POL-2 dated 29.05.2023, Home
Department, Mantralaya Main Building, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) relating to
C.R. No. 0657/2021 dated 23.06.2021 registered at Dadar Police Station Mumbai against M/s. Cox and Kings Ltd.,
Mr. Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar, Promoter/Director, Ms. Urrshila Kerkar, Promoter/Director, Mr. Anil Khandelwal-CFO,
Mr. Pesi Patel, Director, Mr. Antony Good, Director, Mr. Mahalinga Narayanan, Director, unknown others and
unknown bank officials for offences under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)
and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and any attempt,
abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence
committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/57/2023-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1451.—केंर सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म,1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं. िी.ओ. एमएस. सं. 16, दिनांक 16.03.2024 और उत्तरवती अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ. एमएस. सं. 23, दिनांक
04.04.2024, गषि (जविेप) जवभाग के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री के. भारद्वाि, उृ ृोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर, कोइलकोंडा उृ
का ािल के प ृ में का िरत, वतिमान में, डाकघर अिीक्षक, मिबूबनगर प्रभाग के का ािल में का ािल सिा क (जनलंबन
के अंतगित) के तौर ृर का िरत एवं अन् अज्ञात लोक सेवकों और अज्ञात अन् व्यजि ों के जवरुद्ध भारती िंड संजिता की
िारा 120बी सृठ त िाराएं 409, 477ए & भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म 1988 (1988 का केंरी अजिजन म सं् ा
49) (वपि 2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सृठ त िारा 13(1)(ए) के तित दिनांक 13.10.2022 को ििि
सीबीआई मामला आरसी.16(ए)/2022 का अन्वेपण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी
िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
(का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 13.10.2022 से) समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/29/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024
S.O. 1451.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 16.03.2024 and subsequent Notification
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3257
No. G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 04.04.2024, Home (Special) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the
members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 13.10.2022) to the whole State of Telangana
for investigation of CBI Case RC.16(A)/2022 dated 13.10.2022 under section 120B read with section 409, 477A of
IPC & section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Central Act No. 49 of 1988) (as
amended in 2018) against Sri. K. Bharadwaj, working as Sub Post Master, Koilkonda Sub Office, presently working
as Office Assistant (under suspension) O/o the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division and unknown
public servants and unknown others and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with
such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the
same facts.
[F. No. 228/29/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1452.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं. िी.ओ.एमएस.सं. 14, दिनांक 16.03.2024 एवं उत्तरवती अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ.एमएस.सं. 21, दिनांक
04.04.2024, तेलंगाना सरकार, गषि (जविेप) जवभाग के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री दकिोर रघुना फुले, उृ
मिाप्रबंिक (तकनीकी) और ृठर ोिना जनिेिक, ृठर ोिना का ािन्व न एकक, वारंगल, भारती राष्ट्री रािमागि
प्राजिकरण और श्रीमती जनिा दकिोर फुले उफि जनिा बबिरे के ज लाफ भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का
केंरी अजिजन म सं् ा 49) (वपि 2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 12, 13 (2) सृठ त िारा 13(1) (बी) के तित
सी.बी.आई मामला आरसी15(ए)/2022, दिनांक 13.10.2022 का त ा ऐसे अृरािों से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी
िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
(का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 13.10.2022 से) समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/30/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2024
S.O. 1452.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No. 14 dated 16.03.2024 and subsequent
Notification No. G.O.Ms.No. 21 dated 04.04.2024, Home (Special) Department, hereby extends the powers and
jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 13.10.2022) to the whole
State of Telangana for investigation of CBI Case RC.15(A)/2022 dated 13.10.2022 under section 12, 13 (2) read with
Section 13(1) (b) of P.C. Act, 1988 (Central Act No. 49 of 1988) (as amended in 2018) against Shri Kishore
Raghunath Fule, Deputy General Manager (Tech) & Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Warangal,
National Highway Authority of India and Smt. Nisha Kishore Fule @ Nisha Burbure and any attempt, abetment
and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the
course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/30/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1453.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केरल राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं. िी.ओ. (एमएस) सं.135/2023/गषि, दिनांक 26 मई, 2023 गषि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस.आर.ओ.
सं. 610/2023 के प ृ में प्रकाजित) का अजिक्रमण करते हुए अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ. (एमएस) सं. 74/2024/गषि, दिनांक
3258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.03.2024, गषि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस.आर.ओ. सं. 275/2024 के प ृ में प्रकाजित) के माध् म से िारी
सम्मजत से, मेससि मूकंजबका िोम्स & अृाटिमेंट प्रा. जल., श्री रामसेतुरमण, प्रबंि जनिेिक, मेससि मूकंजबका िोम्स &
अृाटिमेंट प्रा. जल., श्री अिीत सी. िंकर, जनिेिक, मेससि मूकंजबका िोम्स & अृाटिमेंट प्रा. जल., श्रीमती उपा मोिन और
श्री अिीत मोिन, भू-स्ट्वामीगण व अन् , दि कोई िो, के ज लाफ भारती िंड संजिता, 1860 (वपि 1860 का केंरी
अजिजन म 45) की िाराएँ 120बी, सृठ त िाराएं 420, 467, 468 और 471 के अंतगित िंडनी अृरािों को
अजभकज त प ृ से काठरत करने से िुड़े अृरािों त ा इस मामले से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा
और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने
के जलए, दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज् में
करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/44/2023-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, 9th May, 2024
S.O. 1453.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O.(Ms)No.74/2024/Home dated 12.03.2024, Home(M)
Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as S.R.O. No. 275/2024] in supersession of the Notification issued
under G.O. (Ms)No. 135/2023/Home dated 26th May, 2023, Home(M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published
as S.R.O. No. 610/2023], hereby accord consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment within the whole State of Kerala for the investigation of offences punishable
under section 120-B, read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of
1860) against M/s. Mookambika Homes & Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Shri R. Sethuraman, Managing Director M/s.
Mookambika Homes & Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ajith C. Shanker Director M/s. Mookambika Homes &
Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Smt. Usha Mohan and Shri Ajith Mohan, Land Owners and others, if any, for commission of
offences punishable under the said Act and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection
with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the
same facts, in regard to this case.
[F. No. 228/44/2023-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1454.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का XXV) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए झार ंड राज् सरकार, गषि, कारागार
एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची, झार ंड की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-404/2024-2029/रांची, दिनांक
01.04.2024 के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री कष्ण कुमार, ृुत्र मोिन साव, जनवासी बुकप , टंडवा, जिला-चतरा
(झार ंड) द्वारा श्री सुिांिु कुमार िमाि, जडस्ट्ृजच अजिकारी, सीसीएल, आम्रृाली ृठर ोिना, चतरा के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार
जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (वपि 2018 में ासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित काठरत अृरािों के जलए दिनांक
13.03.2024 को ििि करा ी गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 02.04.2024 को एक सीबीआई मामला सं.
आरसी0242024ए0004 ििि दक ा ग ा िज, से उत्ृन्न अृराि(िों) का अन्वेपण करने के जलए त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से
िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से
उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 02.04.2024 से) समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/36/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3259
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1454.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No- 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Bihar, issued vide Notification No.9/C.B.I-80-09/2023 HP 3864 dated 04.04.2024, Home
Department (Police Branch) and Corrigendum Notification No.9/C.B.I-80-09/2023 HP 4818 dated 03.05.2024, Home
Department (Police Branch) hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole State of Bihar for registration and investigation of CBI Case pertaining to Cyber Tipline
Report (CTR) No. 104564766 u/s 67-B of IT Act, 2000 against Anup Shanker Sahay S/o Aday Shanker Sahay r/o
Flat No. -301, Raghunandan Lok, Anugrah Narayan Sinha Road, Kadamkuan (Near Congress Maidan), Patna Bihar-
800003, mobile number +918789741011 and Lal Mohammad r/o- Ati Pichda Muslim Village, Harlakhi, Madhubani,
Bihar-847230, Mobile number +919708747437, both are involved in sexual abuse of a minors and in
collection/transmission/publishing of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), depicting children in sexually explicit
manner offences punishable under provisions of IT Act, 2000 and any other offence that may come to the light during
investigation of this case including any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/36/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1455.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए जबिार राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं. 9/सी.बी.आई-80-09/2023 एचृी 3864, दिनांक 04.04.2024, गषि जवभाग (ृुजलस िा ा) एवं िुजद्धृत्र
अजिसूचना सं. 9/सी.बी.आई-80-09/2023 एचृी 4818, दिनांक 03.05.2024, गषि जवभाग (ृुजलस िा ा), के माध् म
से िारी सम्मजत से अनूृ िंकर सिा ृुत्र अि िंकर सिा जनवासी फ्लजट नंबर -301, रघुनंिन लोक, अनुग्रि नारा ण
जसन्िा रोड, किमकुआं (कांग्रेस मजिान के ृास), ृटना, जबिार-800003, मोबाइल नंबर +918789741011 और लाल
मोिम्मि जनवासी- अजत जृछड़ा मुजस्ट्लम गांव, िरला ी, मिुबनी, जबिार- 847230, मोबाइल नंबर +919708747437,
िोनों नाबाजलगों के ौन िोपण और बाल ौन िोपण सामग्री (सीएसएएम) के संग्रि/प्रसारण/प्रकािन में संजलप्त िैं, सूचना
प्रोद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 के प्राविानों के तित बच्चों को स्ट्ृष्ट प ृ से ौन प ृ में जचजत्रत करना िंडनी अृराि िज,
के ज लाफ सूचना प्रोद्योजगकी अजिजन म, 2000 की िारा 67-बी के तित साइबर ठटृलाइन ठरृोटि (सीटीआर) सं् ा
104564766 से संबंजित सीबीआई मामला और इस मामले के अन्वेपण के िौरान प्रकाि में आने वाले अन् अृराि त ा
ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए
गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का ृंिीकरण और अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना
के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त जबिार राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/38/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 27th May, 2024
S.O. 1455—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No- 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government of Bihar, issued vide Notification No.9/C.B.I-80-09/2023 HP 3864 dated 04.04.2024, Home
Department (Police Branch) and Corrigendum Notification No.9/C.B.I-80-09/2023 HP 4818 dated 03.05.2024, Home
3260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Department (Police Branch) hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment to the whole State of Bihar for registration and investigation of CBI Case pertaining to Cyber Tipline
Report (CTR) No. 104564766 u/s 67-B of IT Act, 2000 against Anup Shanker Sahay S/o Aday Shanker Sahay r/o
Flat No. -301, Raghunandan Lok, Anugrah Narayan Sinha Road, Kadamkuan (Near Congress Maidan), Patna Bihar-
800003, mobile number +918789741011 and Lal Mohammad r/o- Ati Pichda Muslim Village, Harlakhi, Madhubani,
Bihar-847230, Mobile number +919708747437, both are involved in sexual abuse of a minors and in
collection/transmission/publishing of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), depicting children in sexually explicit
manner offences punishable under provisions of IT Act, 2000 and any other offence that may come to the light during
investigation of this case including any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/38/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1456.—केन्र सरकार, एति द्वारा दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की िारा 5
की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए झार ंड राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना ज्ञाृन
सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-406/2024-2600 रांची, दिनांक 25. 04. 2024, गषि, कारागार एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग के
माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री संिीव कुमार, ृुत्र स्ट्व. जम लेश्वर प्रसाि जसन्िा, सामान् मििूर, िठर ािाम कोजल री,
सीबीएच ग्रुृ ऑफ माइन्स, मुगमा क्षेत्र, ईसीएल िनबाि द्वारा दिनांक 10. 04. 2024 को ििि कराई गई जिका त,
जिसके आिार ृर श्री राम प्रकाि ृांडे, एिेंट/उृ मिाप्रबंिक, िठर ािाम कोजल री, सीबीएच ग्रुप्स ऑफ माइन्स, मुगमा
क्षेत्र, ईसीएल िनबाि के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के अंतगित
िंडनी अृराि(िों) के जलए दिनांक 01. 05. 2024 को आरसी.2(ए)/2024-डी ृंिीकषत दक ा ग ा िज, का ृंिीकरण एवं
अन्वेपण करने त ा इस मामले के अन्वेपण के िौरान सामने आने वाले दकसी अन् अृराि त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े
ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से
उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना (01. 05. 2024 के प्रभाव से
का ोत्तर) के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/41/2023-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1456.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I-406/2024-2600 Ranchi, dated 25.04.2024,
Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f 01.05.2024) to the whole State of Jharkhand for
registration and investigation into the offence(s) in RC.2(A)/2024-D registered on 01.05.2024 punishable under
section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), against Shri Ram Prakash Pandey,
Agent/DGM, Hariajam colliery, CBH Groups of Mines, Mugma Area, ECL Dhanbad arising out of the complaint
dated 10.04.2024 lodged by Shri Sanjeev Kumar S/o Late Mithleshwar Prasad Sinha, General Mazdoor, Hariajam
Colliery, CBH Group of Mines, Mugma Area, ECL, Dhanabad and any other offence that may come to light during
investigation of this case and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/41/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3261
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1457.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केंरी
अजिजन म XXV) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, तेलंगाना राज्
सरकार की अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ.एमएस.सं.27, दिनांक10.05.2024, गषि (जविेप) जवभाग, तेलंगाना राज् सरकार के
माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री टी. िानकी राव, अृर मिाप्रबंिक, जमश्रा िातु जनगम जलजमटेड (एमआईडीएचएएनआई),
िजिराबाि के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का केंरी अजिजन म सं. 49) (2018 में ा
संिोजित) की िारा 7(ए) के अंतगित िंडनी अृराि(िों) से िुड़े मामले को ृंिीकषत एवं अन्वेपण करने त ा ऐसे
अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए
ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की
िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/43/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1457.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent
of the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No. 27 dated 10.05.2024, Home
(special) Department, Government of Telangana, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Telangana to register and investigate regarding the case
against Sri T. Janaki Rao, Addl. General Manager, Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd. (MIDHANI), Hyderabad for the
offence(s) punishable under section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No. 49 of 1988) (as
amended in the 2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/43/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1458.—केन् र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, झार ंड राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-407/2024-2778, दिनांक 03.05.2024, गषि, कारागार एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची के
माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से (i) बलिीत लसंि, C027517 बीएसएल (ii) बलराम कुमार, C028119 बीएसएल (iii) कुमार
सौरभ, C024780 बीएसएल (iv) जमस्ट्बाहुद्दीन अंसारी, C024484 बीएसएल (v) सनोि कुमार, C024847 बीएसएल
(vi) अंबरृु रामनम्मा, C022121 बीएसएल (vii) रमेि प्रसाि रॉ , C024782 बीएसएल (viii) सुलेमान अंसारी,
C022788 बीएसएल (ix) जवि कुमार, C025790 बीएसएल (x) बलवंत कुमार, C023300 बीएसएल (xi) ज् ोजत
कुमारी, C028171 बीएसएल (xii) रािेि कुमार लाकड़ा, C022642 बीएसएल (xiii) सत् ेन्र ना ृा क, C027462
बीएसएल (xiv) जवि कुमार, C02451 बीएसएल (xv) मनोि कुमार, F240446 सीओएल (xvi) ओम िंकर लसंि,
टी001043 एसआर ू (xvii) बोकारो स्ट्टील प्लांट, एसएआईएल और मेससि बीईसीआईएल के अन् अज्ञात लोक
सेवकों/गजर-सरकारी व्यजि ों के जवरुद्ध भारती िंड संजिता की िारा 120बी सृठ त िारा 420 त ा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण
अजिजन म, 1988 (2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7, 7(ए) एवं 8 के अंतगित िंडनी अृरािों के जलए जन जमत
मामला ृंिीकषत करने एवं अन्वेपण करने और इस मामले के अन्वेपण के िौरान सामने आने वाला कोई अन् अृराि त ा
ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए
3262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की
िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/44/2023-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1458.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-407/2024-2778 dated 03.05.2024, Home,
Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for registration of regular case and
investigation against (i) Baljeet Singh, C027517 BSL, (ii) Balram Kumar, C028119 BSL (iii) Kumar Saurabh,
C024780 BSL (iv) Misbahuddin Ansari, C024484 BSL (v) Sanoj Kumar, C024847 BSL (vi) Ambarapu Ramanamma,
C022121 BSL (vii) Ramesh Prasad Roy, C024782 BSL (viii) Suleman Ansari, C022788 BSL (ix) Vijay Kumar,
C025790 BSL (x) Balwant Kumar, C023300 BSL (xi) Jyoti Kumari, C028171 BSL (xii) Rajesh Kumar Lakra,
C022642 BSL (xiii) Satyendra Nath Pathak, C027462BSL (xiv) Vijay Kumar, C02451 BSL (xv) Manoj Kumar,
F240446 COL (xvi) Om Shankar Singh, T001043 SRU (xvii) other unknown public servants/private persons of
Bakaro Steel Plant, SAIL and M/s BECIL for the offences punishable under section 120-B r/w 420 of IPC and u/s 7,
7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and any other offence that may come to light
during the investigation of this case and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with
such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the
same facts.
[F. No. 228/44/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1459.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए झार ंड राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-408/2024-2922 रांची, दिनांक 09.05.2024, गषि, कारागषि एवं आृिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, के
माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री जवजृन कुमार, एल.एस.िी, ृोस्ट्ट-मास्ट्टर, बगोिर, उृ-डाकघर, जगठरडीि जडवीिन,
जगठरडीि के ज लाफ श्री िेवचंि कुमार, ग्रामीण डाक सेवक, मंिरामो उृ डाकघर, जिला- जगठरडीि द्वारा दिनांक
29.04.2024 को ििि कराई गई जिका त के आिार ृर दिनांक 10.05.2024 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988
(वपि 2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िंडनी अृराि(िों) के संबंि में ृंिीकषत मामला आरसी.3(ए)/2024-
डी से िुड़े अृराि(िों) और कोई अन् अृराि िो इस मामले के अन्वेपण के िौरान प्रकाि में आए और उससे संबद्ध दकसी
िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का ृंिीकरण और अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार
का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 10.05.2024 से) समस्ट्त झार ंड राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/45/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1459.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I-408/2024-2922 Ranchi, dated 09.05.2024,
Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f 10.05.2024) to the whole State of Jharkhand for
registration and investigation into the offence(s) in RC.3(A)/2024-D registered on 10.05.2024 punishable under
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3263
section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), against Shri Vipin Kumar, L.S.G, Post-Master,
Bagodar, Sub-Post Office, Giridih Division, Giridih arising out of the complaint dated 29.04.2024 lodged by Shri
Devchand Kumar, Gramin Dak Sevak, Mandramo Sub Post Office, Distt.- Giridih and any other offence that may
come to light during investigation of this case and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in
connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or
arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/45/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1460.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए ृंिाब राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं.-गषि-एचएम-40 जवजवि/25/2024-3एच4 दिनांक 20.05.2024, गषि मामले एवं जवजि जवभाग, गषि-4 िा ा के
माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से श्री वीरेंर कुमार, प्रबंिक (गुणवत्ता), एफसीआई, मुल्लांृुर ढाका, लुजि ाना, ृंिाब और श्री
ृंकि, टीए, एफसीआई, मुल्लांृुर ढाका, लुजि ाना, ृंिाब के ज लाफ दिनांक 18.05.2024 को श्री भवनिीृ लसंि ृुत्र
श्री िसवन्त लसंि जनवासी ग्राम-िेरा, जिला-लुजि ाना, ृंिाब द्वारा उनके चावल के कागो को ृास करने के बिले में प्रजत
रक 3,000/- रुृ े की ठरश्वत मांगने की जिका त से उत्ृन्न दिनांक 21.05.2024 को ृंिीकषत मामला आरसी.
0052024ए0012 के संबंि में भारती िंड संजिता की िारा 120 बी और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988
का केंरी अजिजन म सं् ा 49) (वपि 2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित अृराि(िों) का ृंिीकरण और
अन्वेपण त ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं
तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और
क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 21.05.2024 से) समस्ट्त ृंिाब राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/46/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1460.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Punjab, issued vide Notification No.HOME-HM-40MISC/25/2024-3H4 dated 20.05.2024, Home
Affairs and Legal Department, Home-4 Branch, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 21.05.2024) in the whole State of Punjab for registration and
investigation into the offence(s) in RC0052024A0012 registered on 21.05.2024 under section 120 B of IPC and
section 7 of prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), against Shri Virender Kumar, Manager
(Quality), FCI, Mullanpur Dhaka, Ludhiana, Punjab and Shri Pankaj, TA, FCI, Mullanpur Dhaka, Ludhiana, Punjab
arising out of the complaint dated 18.05.2024 lodged by Shri Bhawandeep Singh S/o Shri Jaswant Singh R/o Village-
Hera, District-Ludhiana, Punjab for demanding a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- per truck in exchange for passing his cargo of
rice and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any
other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/46/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1461.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केन्री
अजिजन म 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केरल राज्
सरकार की अजिसूचना िी.ओ(एमएस)सं.103/2024/गषि, दिनांक 24/04/2024, गषि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम
3264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(एस.आर.ओ. सं. 408/2024 के प ृ में प्रकाजित) के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री अनीि के. ए., सीमा िुल्क जनरीक्षक,
श्री जनजतन एस., सीमा िुल्क जनरीक्षक, जतरुवनंतृुरम अंतरािष्ट्री िवाई अड्डा, श्री नारा णन ृुत्र श्री अंबाड़ी, ए.वी.
िाउस, रािाजगरी, रोमेनेश्वरम, कासरगोड और श्री सुकुमारन अंबाड़ी, एृी XII/144ए, ृल्लाज ल िाउस, जचतार,
डाक ाना - जचतारी, कान्िांगड, कासरगोड एवं अज्ञात अन् ों, दि कोई िो, के जवरुद्ध भारती िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860
का अजिजन म 45) की िारा 120बी सृठ त भ्र् टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का अजिजन म 49),
भ्र् टाचार जनवारण (संिोिन) अजिजन म, 2018 (2018 का केन्री अजिजन म 16) द्वारा ा संिोजित, की िारा 7, 8
एवं 12 के तित दकए गए अजभकज त िंडनी अृराि(िों) ा मूल अृरािों त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध
दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्
अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
समस्ट्त केरल राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/49/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1461.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of
the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O(Ms)No.103/2024/HOME dated 24/04/2024, Home (M)
Department, Thiruvananthapuram (Published as S.R.O No. 408/2024), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of
the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Kerala for investigation of the alleged
commission of offence(s) punishable under sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) read with
sections 7, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 49 of 1988), 1988 as amended by the Prevention of
Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Central Act 16 of 2018) and substantive offences thereof against Shri Aneesh K.
A., Inspector Customs, Shri Nithin S., Inspector Customs, Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, Shri Narayanan
S/o. Shri Ambadi, A. V. House, Rajagiri, Romeneswaram, Kasargod and Shri Sukumaran Ambadi, AP XII/144A,
Pallayil House, Chithar, Chitari-P.O, Kanhangad, Kasargod and unknown others, if any, for the commission of
offences punishable under the said Acts and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection
with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the
same facts.
[F. No. 228/49/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 4 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1462.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का केंरी
अजिजन म 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मिारा् र राज्
सरकार की अजिसूचना सं. वीआईृी-3023/सी.आर.26/ृोल-12, दिनांक 22.05.2023, िुजद्धृत्र अजिसूचना सं. वीआई
ृी-3023/सी.आर.26/ृोल-12 दिनांक 15.02.2024 & िुजद्धृत्र अजिसूचना सं. वीआईृी-3023/सी.आर.26/ृोल-12
दिनांक 12.04.2024, मिाराष्ट्र सरकार, गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से िलगांव जसटी ाना, िलगांव,
मिाराष्ट्र में भारती िण्ड संजिता की 120बी, 193, 34, 420, 448, 467, 468, 471, 511 के तित ििि मामला
सी.आर. सं. 323/2022 और चालीसगांव जसटी ाना, िलगांव, मिाराष्ट्र में भारती िण्ड संजिता की 166, 213, 384,
385, 386,388, 506,34, 120बी के तित ििि मामला सी.आर.सं. 25/2023 का त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे
संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा एवं/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी
अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
समस्ट् त मिारा् र राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/71/2022-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3265
New Delhi, the 4th June, 2024
S.O. 1462.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of
the State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Notification No. VIP-3023/C.R.26/Pol-12 dated 22.05.2023,
Corrigendum Notification No. VIP-3023/C.R.26/Pol-12 dated 15.02.2024 & Corrigendum Notification No. VIP-
3023/C.R.26/Pol-12 dated 12.04.2024, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the
powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra
for investigation in respect of the crime registered vide C.R. No. 323/2022 at Jalgaon city Police station, Jalgaon,
Maharashtra State under Sections 120(B), 193, 34, 420, 448, 467, 468, 471, 511 of IPC along with crime registered
vide C.R. No. 25/2023 at Chalisgaon city Police station, Jalgaon, Maharashtra State under Sections 166, 213, 384,
385, 386, 388, 506, 34, 120(B) of IPC and any other offence and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation
to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction
or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/71/2022-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 6 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1463.—केन् र सरकार,एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म,1946 (1946 का केन्री
अजिजन म 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केरल राज्
सरकार की अजिसूचना िी.ओ.(एमएस)सं.48/2024/गषि, दिनांक14.02.2024, गषि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम
(एस.आर.ओ. सं. 309/2024) के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से, बैंक ऑफ इंजड ा, आट्टंगल िा ा के अज्ञात अजिकाठर ों,
श्री दफरोि ान, माजलक, मेससि कन्सेप्ट बाइक्स त ा अन् अज्ञात व्यजि ों, दि कोई िों, के जवरुद्ध भारती िंड संजिता,
1860 (1860 का केन्री अजिजन म 45) की िारा 120बी सृठ त िारा 420, 406 एवं 409 त ा भ्र् टाचार जनवारण
अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का केन्री अजिजन म 49) (2018 के अजिजन म 16 द्वारा ा संिोजित) की िारा 13 की
उृ-िारा (2) सृठ त उृ-िारा (1) के ंड (क) के अंतगित िंडनी अृराि(िों) त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों)से िुड़े ा उससे
संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी
अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार
समस्ट्त केरल राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/47/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2024
S.O. 1463.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of
the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O.(Ms)No.48/2024/HOME dated 14.02.2024, Home (M)
Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O. No. 309/2024), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the offence(s) against
unknown officials of Bank of India, Attingal branch, Shri. Firoz Khan, Proprietor of M/s. Concept Bikes and
unknown others, if any, punishable under section 120-B read with sections 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code
1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) and sub section (2) read with clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 13 of prevention
of corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988 (as amended vide Act 16 of 2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or
conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course
of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.
[F. No. 228/47/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 7 िून, 2024
का.आ. 1464.—केन्र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की
िारा 5 की उृिारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए तजमलनाडु राज् सरकार की अजिसूचना
सं.िी.ओ. (2डी) सं. 130, दिनांक 10.05.2024, गषि (नागठरकता) जवभाग के माध् म से िारी सम्मजत से, चीन से ब्रावो
3266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
एजक्सम द्वारा आ ाजतत माल का मूल् ांकन करने एवं िुल्क लगाने के जलए 50,000/- रुृ े की घूस की मांग
करने/अवांजछत लाभ उ ाने (10 स्ट्टार) के संबंि में श्री मिु कुमार, ृुत्र एम.एस. स्ट्वामीना न द्वारा दिनांक 27.04.2024
को ििि कराई गई जिका त, जिसके आिार ृर श्री मनीप, मूल् ांकन अजिकारी, समूि 3, प्र म तल, कस्ट्टम्स िाउस,
रािािी सलाई, चेन्नई-1 के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (2018 में ा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के अंतगित
िंडनी अृराि(िों) के जलए दिनांक 10.05.2024 को आरसी0322024ए0007 ृंिीकषत दक ा ग ा िज, का ृंिीकरण
एवं अन्वेपण करने त ा ऐसे अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्प्र ास, िु्प्रेरणा और/अ वा पड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा
उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेपण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेप ृुजलस
स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (10.05.2024 से का ोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु
राज् में करती िज।
[फा. सं. 228/48/2024-एवीडी-II]
कुंिन ना , अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th June, 2024
S.O. 1464.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of
the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O. (2D) No.130 dated 10.05.2024, Home
(Citizenship) Department hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 10.05.2024) in the whole State of Tamil Nadu for registration and investigation
into the offence(s) in RC0322024A0007 registered on 10.05.2024 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (amended in 2018), against Shri Manish, Appraising Officer, Group 3, First Floor, Customs House, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-1 arising out of the complaint dated 27.04.2024 lodged by Shri Madhu Kumar S/o M. S. Swaminathan for
demanding of bribe/undue advantage of Rs. 50,000/- (Ten Stars) to appraise the goods imported by Bravo Exim from
China and to levy the duty and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such
offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same
facts.
[F. No. 228/48/2024-AVD-II]
KUNDAN NATH, Under Secy.
वाजणज् एवं उद्योग मंत्राल
(वाजणज् जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1465.—केन्री सरकार, जन ाित (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण और जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22)
की िारा 17 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, जन ाित जनरीक्षण ृठरपि कमिचारी (वगीकरण, जन ंत्रण और अृील)
जन म, 1978 में और आगे संिोिन करने के जलए जनम्नजलज त जन म बनाती िज, अ ाित:-
1.
(1) इन जन मों को जन ाित जनरीक्षण ृठरपि कमिचारी (वगीकरण, जन ंत्रण और अृील) (संिोिन) जन म,
2024 किा िाएगा।
(2) े 31.07.2024 से लागू िोंगे ।
2.
जन ाित जनरीक्षण ृठरपि कमिचारी (वगीकरण, जन ंत्रण और अृील) जन म, 1978 (इसके ृश्चात् उि जन म के
प ृ में संिर्भित) में जन म 5 के जलए जनम्नजलज त प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“5.
इन जन मों के प्र ोिन के जलए, ृठरपि के कमिचाठर ों को जनम्नजलज त तीन समूिों में वगीकषत दक ा िाएगा,
अ ाित्:
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3267
समूि क - वेतन मजठरक्स में स्ट्तर 10 ा उससे ऊृर के वेतन वाला ृि।
समूि - वेतन मजठरक्स में 6 से 9 के स्ट्तर ृर वेतन वाला ृि।
समूि ग - वेतन मजठरक्स में 1 से 6 के स्ट्तर ृर वेतन वाला ृि।
नोट: वेतन मजठरक्स स्ट्तर 6 में वेतन वाले ृि, जिसमें केवल तकनीकी अजिकारी और अनुभाग
अजिकारी का ृिनाम िोगा, को ग्रुृ बी में वगीकषत दक ा िाएगा और अन् को ग्रुृ सी में र ा िाएगा।
3. उि जन मों के जन म 6 में, -
(क) उृजन म (5) के जलए जनम्नजलज त उृजन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत िाएगा, अ ाित् :-
“(5)
(क) उृ-जन म (7) के अध् िीन, इस जन म के तित दकए गए ा समझे गए जनलंबन का आिेि तब तक प्रवषत
रिेगा िब तक दक इसे ऐसा करने के जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी द्वारा संिोजित ा रद्द निीं दक ा िाता िज।
( ) ििां ृठरपि का कोई कमिचारी जनलजम्बत दक ा िाता िज ा जनलजम्बत माना िाता िज (चािे दकसी
अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी के संबंि में िो ा अन् ा) और उस जनलम्बन के िारी रिने के िौरान उसके जवरुद्ध
कोई अन् अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी िुप की िाती िज, तो उसे जनलजम्बत करने के जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी, उसके
द्वारा जलज त प ृ में अजभजलज त दकए िाने वाले कारणों से, जनिेि िे सकता िज दक ृठरपि का कमिचारी ऐसी
सभी ा दकसी भी का िवािी की समाजप्त तक जनलजम्बत बना रिेगा।
(ग) इस जन म के अिीन दकए गए ा माने गए जनलंबन के आिेि को दकसी भी सम उस प्राजिकारी द्वारा
संिोजित ा रद्द दक ा िा सकेगा, जिसने वि आिेि दि ा िज ा जिसे आिेि िेने के जलए माना ग ा िज ा दकसी
ऐसे प्राजिकारी द्वारा जिसके अिीन वि प्राजिकारी िज।"
( ) उृ-जन म (5) के ृश्चात्, जनम्नजलज त उृ-जन म अंतःस्ट् ाजृत दकए िाएंगे, अ ाित्: -
"(6)
इस जन म के तित दकए गए ा माने गए जनलंबन के आिेि की समीक्षा उस प्राजिकारी द्वारा की िाएगी िो
जनलंबन को जनलंबन आिेि की तारी से नब्बे दिन की समाजप्त से ृिले संिोजित ा रद्द करने और जनलंबन को बढाने ा
रद्द करने के आिेि ृाठरत करने के जलए सक्षम िज त ा जनलंबन की जवस्ट्ताठरत अवजि की समाजप्त से ृिले उत्तरवती समीक्षा
की िाएगी एवं जनलंबन का जवस्ट्तार एक बार में एक सौ अस्ट्सी दिनों से अजिक की अवजि के जलए निीं िोगा।
(7)
उृ-जन म (1) ा (2) के तित दकए गए ा माना ग ा जनलंबन आिेि नब्बे दिनों की अवजि के बाि वजि निीं
िोगा िब तक दक इसे नब्बे दिनों की समाजप्त से ृिले समीक्षा के ृश्चात एक और अवजि के जलए न बढा ा िाए। बिते दक
उृ-जन म (2) के तित माने गए जनलंबन के मामले में जनलंबन की कोई ऐसी समीक्षा आवश् क निीं िोगी, दि ृठरपि
का कमिचारी नब्बे दिनों के जनलंबन के ृूरा िोने के सम जनलंबन के अिीन रिता िज और ऐसे मामले में नब्बे दिन की
अवजि उस तारी से जगनी िाएगी जिस दिन अजभरक्षा में जलए गए ृठरपि कमिचारी को जिरासत से ठरिा दक ा िाता िज
ा जिस तारी को िब अजभरक्षा से उसकी ठरिाई के तथ् को उसके जन ुजि प्राजिकारी को सूजचत दक ा िाता िज, िो भी
बाि में िो।
4. उि जन मों के जन म 8 में-
क. ंड (iii) के बाि जनम्नजलज त ंड को अंतवेजित दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित:-
(iii क) वेतन सम मान में तीन वपों से अजिक सम के जलए एक स्ट्तर कम करना ृरन्तु इसका कोई संच ी प्रभाव निीं
िोगा और न िी उसकी ृेंिन ृर प्रजतकूल प्रभाव ृड़ेगा।
( ) ंड (v) के स्ट् ान ृर जनम्नजलज त ंड प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दकए िा ेंगे, अ ाित:-
“(v) ंड (iii क) में दिए गए प्राविान के जसवा , दकसी जवजनर्ििष्ट अवजि के जलए सम -वेतनमान को जनम्नतर स्ट्तर ृर इस
अजतठरि जनिेि के सा कम करना दक क् ा ृठरपि का कमिचारी ऐसी अवनजत की अवजि के िौरान वेतन वषजद्ध अर्िित
करेगा ा निीं और क् ा ऐसी अवजि की समाजप्त ृर, वेतन में कमी से उसके वेतन की भावी वेतन वषजद्ध स्ट् जगत िोगी ा
निीं;”
(ग) ंड (viii) और (ix) के स्ट् ान ृर जनम्नजलज त ंड प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दकए िा ेंगे, अ ाित:-
(viii) सेवा से ठरमूवल िो सरकार अ वा ृठरपि के अिीन भजव् में रोिगार के जलए अनििता निीं िोगी; त ा
3268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ix) सेवा से ब ािस्ट्तगी िो सामान् तः सरकार/ ृठरपि के अिीन भजव् में रोिगार के जलए अनििता िोगी।"
(5) उि जन मों के जन म 11 में
(क) उृ जन म (2) के जलए, जनम्नजलज त उृ जन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
"(2) िब कभी अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी की ि रा िो दक ृठरपि के दकसी कमिचारी के जवरुद्ध किाचार ा िुव्यिविार के
दकसी आरोृ की सत् ता की िांच करने के जलए आिार िैं, तो वि ा तो स्ट्व ं उसकी िॉंच करेगा ा इस जन म के अिीन
ा लोक सेवक (ृूछताछ) अजिजन म, 1850 के अिीन ाजस्ट् जत, उसकी सच्चाई की िांच करने के जलए दकसी प्राजिकारी
को जन ुि कर सकेगा;
बितें दक ििां केन्री जसजवल सेवा (आचरण) जन मावली, 1964 के जन म 3ग के अ ािन्तगित ौन उत्ृीड़न की जिका त
की गई िज विां ऐसी जिका तों की िांच करने के जलए का ािल में बनाई गई जिका त सजमजत को, इन जन मों के प्र ोिन
के जलए अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी द्वारा जन ुि िांचकताि प्राजिकारी माना िाएगा और दि ौन उत्ृीड़न की जिका तों की
िांच करने के जलए जिका त सजमजत के जलए अलग प्रदक्र ा जनिािठरत निीं की गई िज, तो जिका त जनवारण सजमजत इन
जन मों में जनिािठरत प्रदक्र ा के अनुसार ासंभव, िांच आ ोजित करेगी।
स्ट्ृष्टीकरण:ििॉं अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी-
(i)
स्ट्व ं िांच करता िज, विां उृजन म (7) से उृजन म (20) तक और उृजन म (22) में िांच प्राजिकारी के प्रजत
कोई संिभि अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी के प्रजत संिभि के प ृ में समझा िाएगा; ा
(ii)
दकसी सेवाजनवषत्त सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक को िांच प्राजिकारी जन ुि करता िज, विां उृजन म (7) से
उृजन म (20) तक और उृजन म (22) में दकसी संिभि में ऐसा प्राजिकारी िाजमल िोगा।
( ) उृजन म (8) के जलए जनम्नजलज त उृजन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“(8)
(क) ृठरपि का कमिचारी अृनी ओर से मामला प्रस्ट्तुत करने के जलए अृने मु् ाल में ा उस स्ट् ान ृर ििां
िांच की िाती िज, दकसी भी का ािल में तजनात दकसी अन् सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की सिा ता ले सकता िज,
लेदकन इस उद्देश् के जलए दकसी जवजि व्यवसा ी को जन ुि निीं कर सकता, िब तक दक अनुिासनात्मक प्राजिकारी द्वारा
जन ुि प्रस्ट्तुतकताि अजिकारी कोई जवजि व्यवसा ी न िो, ा अनुिासनात्मक प्राजिकारी मामले की ृठरजस्ट् जत ों को ध् ान
में र ते हुए ऐसा करने की अनुमजत न िे;
बिते दक ृठरपि का कमिचारी दकसी अन् स्ट् ान ृर तजनात दकसी अन् सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की सिा ता ले
सकेगा, दि िांच प्राजिकारी मामले की ृठरजस्ट् जत ों को ध् ान में र ते हुए त ा जलज त प ृ में ििि दकए िाने वाले
कारणों से ऐसा करने की अनुमजत िेता िज।
( ) ृठरपि का कमिचारी दकसी अन् सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की सिा ता निीं लेगा जिसके ृास तीन
अनुिासनात्मक मामले लंजबत िों जिनमें उसे सिा ता िेनी िज।
(ग) ृठरपि का कमिचारी अृनी ओर से मामला प्रस्ट्तुत करने के जलए सेवाजनवषत्त सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की
सिा ता भी ले सकता िज, बिते दक भारत सरकार द्वारा इस संबंि में सम -सम ृर सामान् ा जविेप आिेि द्वारा
जनर्ििष्ट ितें लागू िों।
(6) उि जन मों के जन म 14 के ृश्चात् जनम्नजलज त जन म अंतःस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“14-क. सेवाजनवषजत्त ा अजिवर्पिता के बाि अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी िारी र ना:
(1) अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी, दि ृठरपि कमिचारी के सेवा में रिने के िौरान िुप की गई ी, चािे वि उसकी
सेवाजनवषजत्त से ृिले िो ा उसकी ृुनर्नि ुजि के िौरान, कमिचारी की अंजतम सेवाजनवषजत्त के बाि, चालू मानी िाएगी और
उसे उस प्राजिकारी द्वारा िारी र ा िाएगा और समाप्त दक ा िाएगा, जिसके द्वारा उसे उसी तरि िुप दक ा ग ा ा
िजसे दक ृठरपि का कमिचारी सेवा में बना िो।
(2) अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी के लंजबत रिने के िौरान, ृठरपि के कमिचारी के सेवाजनवषजत्त लाभ केन्री सरकार के
संबंजित जन मों के प्राविानों के अनुसार त दक े िाएंगे।
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3269
(7) उि जन मों के जन म 19 में ंड (i) के जलए जनम्नजलज त ंड प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“(i) वेतन मजठरक्स में स्ट्तर 13 ा उससे ऊृर के वेतन वाले ृि को छोड़कर ृठरपि द्वारा दि ा ग ा दकसी आिेि, की
अृील केंर सरकार को की िाएगी;”
(8) उि जन मों के जन म 21 में, उृ- ंड (3) के जलए जनम्नजलज त उृजन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“(3) ृठरपि का कोई कमिचारी, वेतन मजठरक्स में स्ट्तर 13 ा उससे ऊृर के वेतन वाले ृि को छोड़कर जिस में अृील
केंरी सरकार को की िाएगी, जन म 8 में जवजनर्ििष्ट दकसी भी िंड को लागू करने वाले आिेि के जवरुद्ध अध् क्ष को अृील
कर सकता िज, दि ऐसा िंड ृठरपि के दकसी कमिचारी ृर सं ुि ृरामिि और अजनवा ि मध् स्ट् ता ोिना में भाग लेने
वाले दकसी संघ, मिासंघ ा ूजन न के ृिाजिकारी के प ृ में उसके का ि से िुड़ी गजतजवजि ों के संबंि में अध् क्ष के
अलावा दकसी अन् प्राजिकारी द्वारा लगा ा िाता िज तो ”उृ-जन म (1) ा उृ-जन म (2) के तित उसके जलए ऐसी कोई
अृील निीं की िाएगी।
(फा. सं. के-16012/7/2022-जन ाित जनरीक्षण)
िृिण िजन, सं ुि सजचव
नोट: मूल जन म भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II , ंड 3, उृ ंड (II) में अजिसूचना सं् ा एस.ओ.42 दिनांक 7 िनवरी,
1978 द्वारा प्रकाजित दकए गए े और तत्ृश्चात् अजिसूचना सं् ा एस.ओ. 1442 दिनांक 5 मई, 1979,
एस.ओ.1020 दिनांक 19 अप्रजल, 1980, एस.ओ.556 दिनांक 6 फरवरी, 1982,एस.ओ.2631 दिनांक 14 अक्टूर
1989 और िी.एस.आर.311 दिनांक 31 मई 1993 द्वारा संिोजित दकए गए।
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024
S.O. 1465.—In exercise of powers conferred by section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Act, 1963 (the 22 of 1963), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Export
Inspection Council Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Export Inspection Council Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Amendment Rules, 2024.
(2) They shall come into force from 31.07.2024.
2. In the Export Inspection Council Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as the said rules), for rule 5, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“5.
For the purpose of these rules, the Council employees shall be classified into the following three Groups,
namely:
Group A – A post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 10 or above.
Group B – A post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level from 6 to 9.
Group C – A post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level from 1 to 6.
Note: Post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 6 having designation of Technical Officer and
Section Officer only will be classified into Group B and others will be in Group C.”
3. In rule 6 of the said rules,-
(a) for sub-rule (5), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(5)
(a) Subject to sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall
continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
(b) Where a Council employee is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection
with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against
him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may,
3270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Council employee shall continue to be under
suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings.
(c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified
or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which
that authority is subordinate.”.
(b) after sub-rule (5), the following sub-rules shall be inserted, namely:-
“(6)
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority
which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension
order and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension, and subsequent reviews shall be made before
expiry of the extended period of suspension and extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one
hundred and eighty days at a time.
(7)
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) shall not be valid after a
period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days:
Provided that review of suspension shall not be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the
Council employee continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the
ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Council employee detained in custody is released from
detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority,
whichever is later.”.
4. In rule 8 of the said rules,-
(a) after clause (iii), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-
“(iii a) reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.”;
(b) for clause (v), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
“(v) save as provided for in clause (iii a), reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period,
with further directions as to whether or not the Council employee will earn increments of pay during the period of
such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing
the future increments of his pay;”;
(c) for clauses (viii) and (ix), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
“(viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or
Council; and
(ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government
or Council.”.
5. In rule 11 of the said rules,-
(a) for sub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against theCouncil employee, it may itself inquire into or appoint under
this rule or under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth
thereof:
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in the Office for inquiring into such
complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of
these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the
Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as
practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules.
Explanation.-Where the disciplinary authority-
(i) itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring
authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority; or
(ii) appoints a retired Government servant or Public Servant as inquiring authority, any reference in sub-rule (7)
to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) shall include such authority.”;
(b) for sub-rule (8), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3271
“(8)
(a) The Council employee may take the assistance of any other Government servant or Public Servant posted
in any office either at his headquarters or at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the case on his
behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by
the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, so permits:
Provided that the Council employee may take the assistance of any other Government servant or Public Servant
posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to
be recorded in writing, so permits.
(b) The Council employee shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant or Public Servant who has
three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.
(c) The Council employee may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant or Public Servant to present
the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government of India from time to time
by general or special order in this behalf.”.
(6) After rule 14 of the said rules, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:-
“14-A. Continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings after retirement or superannuation.-
(1) Disciplinary proceedings, if instituted while the Council employee was in service whether before his retirement or
during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceeding and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the council employee
had continued in service.
(2) During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits to the Council employee shall be
decided in accordance with the provisions of the respective rules of the Central Government as applicable.”.
(7) In rule 19 of the said rules, for clause (i), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
“(i) any order made by the Council except for the post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 13 or above in
which case the appeal shall be made to the Central Government;”.
(8) In rule 21 of the said rules, for sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(3) The Council employee may prefer an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 8 to
the Chairman, except for the post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 13 or above in which case the appeal
shall be made to the Central Government, where no such appeal lies to him under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), if such
penalty is imposed by any authority other than the Chairman on such Council employee in respect of his activities
connected with his work as an office bearer of an association, federation or union participating in the Joint
Consultation and Compulsory arbitration Scheme.”.
[F. No. K-16012/7/2022-Export Inspection]
DARPAN JAIN, Jt. Secy.
Note.- The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide notification
number S.O. 42, dated the 7th January 1978 and subsequently amended vide notifications numbers S.O. 1442 ,
dated the 5th May 1979 S.O.1020, dated the 19th April 1980, S.O.556, dated the 6th February 1982, S.O.2631,
dated the 14th October 1989 and G.S.R.311, dated the 31st May 1993.
नई दिल्ली, 31 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1466.— केन्री सरकार, जन ाित (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण और जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22) की
िारा 17 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, जन ाित जनरीक्षण अजभकरण कमिचारी (वगीकरण, जन ंत्रण और अृील)
जन म, 1978 में और आगे संिोिन करने के जलए जनम्नजलज त जन म बनाती िज, अ ाित:-
1.
(1) इन जन मों को जन ाित जनरीक्षण अजभकरण कमिचारी (वगीकरण, जन ंत्रण और अृील) (संिोिन) जन म,
2024 किा िाएगा।
(2) े 31.07.2024 से लागू िोंगे।
2.
जन ाित जनरीक्षण अजभकरण कमिचारी (वगीकरण, जन ंत्रण और अृील) जन म, 1978 (इसके ृश्चात् उि जन म
के प ृ में संिर्भित) में जन म 5 के जलए जनम्नजलज त प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
3272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“5.
इन जन मों के प्र ोिन के जलए, अजभकरण के कमिचाठर ों को जनम्नजलज त तीन समूिों में वगीकषत दक ा िाएगा,
अ ाित्:
समूि क - वेतन मजठरक्स में स्ट्तर 10 ा उससे ऊृर के वेतन वाला ृि।
समूि - वेतन मजठरक्स में 6 से 9 के स्ट्तर ृर वेतन वाला ृि।
समूि ग - वेतन मजठरक्स में 1 से 6 के स्ट्तर ृर वेतन वाला ृि।
नोट: वेतन मजठरक्स स्ट्तर 6 में वेतन वाले ृि, जिसमें केवल तकनीकी अजिकारी और अनुभाग अजिकारी का
ृिनाम िोगा, को ग्रुृ बी में वगीकषत दक ा िाएगा और अन् को ग्रुृ सी में र ा िाएगा।
3. उि जन मों के जन म 6 में, -
(क) उृजन म (5) के जलए जनम्नजलज त उृजन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत िाएगा, अ ाित् :-
“(5)
(क) उृ-जन म (7) के अध् िीन, इस जन म के तित दकए गए ा समझे गए जनलंबन का आिेि तब तक प्रवषत
रिेगा िब तक दक इसे ऐसा करने के जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी द्वारा संिोजित ा रद्द निीं दक ा िाता िज।
( ) ििां अजभकरण का कोई कमिचारी जनलजम्बत दक ा िाता िज ा जनलजम्बत माना िाता िज (चािे दकसी
अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी के संबंि में िो ा अन् ा) और उस जनलम्बन के िारी रिने के िौरान उसके जवरुद्ध
कोई अन् अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी िुप की िाती िज, तो उसे जनलजम्बत करने के जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी, उसके
द्वारा जलज त प ृ में अजभजलज त दकए िाने वाले कारणों से, जनिेि िे सकता िज दक अजभकरण का कमिचारी ऐसी
सभी ा दकसी भी का िवािी की समाजप्त तक जनलजम्बत बना रिेगा।
(ग) इस जन म के अिीन दकए गए ा माने गए जनलंबन के आिेि को दकसी भी सम उस प्राजिकारी द्वारा संिोजित ा
रद्द दक ा िा सकेगा, जिसने वि आिेि दि ा िज ा जिसे आिेि िेने के जलए माना ग ा िज ा दकसी ऐसे प्राजिकारी द्वारा
जिसके अिीन वि प्राजिकारी िज।"
( ) उृ-जन म (5) के ृश्चात्, जनम्नजलज त उृ-जन म अंतःस्ट् ाजृत दकए िाएंगे, अ ाित्: -
"(6)
इस जन म के तित दकए गए ा माने गए जनलंबन के आिेि की समीक्षा उस प्राजिकारी द्वारा की िाएगी िो
जनलंबन को जनलंबन आिेि की तारी से नब्बे दिन की समाजप्त से ृिले संिोजित ा रद्द करने और जनलंबन को बढाने ा
रद्द करने के आिेि ृाठरत करने के जलए सक्षम िज त ा जनलंबन की जवस्ट्ताठरत अवजि की समाजप्त से ृिले उत्तरवती समीक्षा
की िाएगी एवं जनलंबन का जवस्ट्तार एक बार में एक सौ अस्ट्सी दिनों से अजिक की अवजि के जलए निीं िोगा।
(7)
उृ-जन म (1) ा (2) के तित दकए गए ा माना ग ा जनलंबन आिेि नब्बे दिनों की अवजि के बाि वजि निीं
िोगा िब तक दक इसे नब्बे दिनों की समाजप्त से ृिले समीक्षा के ृश्चात एक और अवजि के जलए न बढा ा िाए। बिते दक
उृ-जन म (2) के तित माने गए जनलंबन के मामले में जनलंबन की कोई ऐसी समीक्षा आवश् क निीं िोगी, दि अजभकरण
का कमिचारी नब्बे दिनों के जनलंबन के ृूरा िोने के सम जनलंबन के अिीन रिता िज और ऐसे मामले में नब्बे दिन की
अवजि उस तारी से जगनी िाएगी जिस दिन अजभरक्षा में जलए गए अजभकरण कमिचारी को जिरासत से ठरिा दक ा िाता
िज ा जिस तारी को िब अजभरक्षा से उसकी ठरिाई के तथ् को उसके जन ुजि प्राजिकारी को सूजचत दक ा िाता िज, िो
भी बाि में िो।
4. उि जन मों के जन म 8 में-
क. ंड (iii) के बाि जनम्नजलज त ंड को अंतवेजित दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित:-
(iii क) वेतन सम मान में तीन वपों से अजिक सम के जलए एक स्ट्तर कम करना ृरन्तु इसका कोई संच ी प्रभाव निीं
िोगा और न िी उसकी ृेंिन ृर प्रजतकूल प्रभाव ृड़ेगा।
( ) ंड (v) के स्ट् ान ृर जनम्नजलज त ंड प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दकए िा ेंगे, अ ाित:-
“(v) ंड (iii क) में दिए गए प्राविान के जसवा , दकसी जवजनर्ििष्ट अवजि के जलए सम -वेतनमान को जनम्नतर स्ट्तर ृर इस
अजतठरि जनिेि के सा कम करना दक क् ा अजभकरण का कमिचारी ऐसी अवनजत की अवजि के िौरान वेतन वषजद्ध अर्िित
करेगा ा निीं और क् ा ऐसी अवजि की समाजप्त ृर, वेतन में कमी से उसके वेतन की भावी वेतन वषजद्ध स्ट् जगत िोगी ा
निीं;”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3273
(ग) ंड (viii) और (ix) के स्ट् ान ृर जनम्नजलज त ंड प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दकए िा ेंगे, अ ाित:-
(viii) सेवा से ठरमूवल िो सरकार अ वा अजभकरण के अिीन भजव् में रोिगार के जलए अनििता निीं िोगी; त ा
(ix) सेवा से ब ािस्ट्तगी िो सामान् तः सरकार/ अजभकरण के अिीन भजव् में रोिगार के जलए अनििता िोगी।"
(5) उि जन मों के जन म 11 में
(क) उृ जन म (2) के जलए, जनम्नजलज त उृ जन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
"(2) िब कभी अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी की ि रा िो दक अजभकरण के दकसी कमिचारी के जवरुद्ध किाचार ा िुव्यिविार
के दकसी आरोृ की सत् ता की िांच करने के जलए आिार िैं, तो वि ा तो स्ट्व ं उसकी िॉंच करेगा ा इस जन म के
अिीन ा लोक सेवक (ृूछताछ) अजिजन म, 1850 के अिीन ाजस्ट् जत, उसकी सच्चाई की िांच करने के जलए दकसी
प्राजिकारी को जन ुि कर सकेगा;
बितें दक केन्री जसजवल सेवा (आचरण) जन मावली, 1964 के जन म 3ग के अ ािन्तगित ौन उत्ृीड़न की जिका त की
गई िज विां ऐसी जिका तों की िांच करने के जलए का ािल में बनाई गई जिका त सजमजत को, इन जन मों के प्र ोिन के
जलए अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी द्वारा जन ुि िांचकताि प्राजिकारी माना िाएगा और दि ौन उत्ृीड़न की जिका तों की
िांच करने के जलए जिका त सजमजत के जलए अलग प्रदक्र ा जनिािठरत निीं की गई िज, तो जिका त जनवारण सजमजत इन
जन मों में जनिािठरत प्रदक्र ा के अनुसार ासंभव, िांच आ ोजित करेगी।
स्ट्ृष्टीकरण:ििॉं अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी-
(i)
स्ट्व ं िांच करता िज, विां उृजन म (7) से उृजन म (20) तक और उृजन म (22) में िांच प्राजिकारी के प्रजत
कोई संिभि अनुिासजनक प्राजिकारी के प्रजत संिभि के प ृ में समझा िाएगा; ा
(ii)
दकसी सेवाजनवषत्त सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक को िांच प्राजिकारी जन ुि करता िज, विां उृजन म (7) से
उृजन म (20) तक और उृजन म (22) में दकसी संिभि में ऐसा प्राजिकारी िाजमल िोगा।
( ) उृजन म (8) के जलए जनम्नजलज त उृजन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“(8)
(क) अजभकरण का कमिचारी अृनी ओर से मामला प्रस्ट्तुत करने के जलए अृने मु् ाल में ा उस स्ट् ान ृर ििां
िांच की िाती िज, दकसी भी का ािल में तजनात दकसी अन् सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की सिा ता ले सकता िज,
लेदकन इस उद्देश् के जलए दकसी जवजि व्यवसा ी को जन ुि निीं कर सकता, िब तक दक अनुिासनात्मक प्राजिकारी द्वारा
जन ुि प्रस्ट्तुतकताि अजिकारी कोई जवजि व्यवसा ी न िो, ा अनुिासनात्मक प्राजिकारी मामले की ृठरजस्ट् जत ों को ध् ान
में र ते हुए ऐसा करने की अनुमजत न िे;
बिते दक अजभकरण का कमिचारी दकसी अन् स्ट् ान ृर तजनात दकसी अन् सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की सिा ता
ले सकेगा, दि िांच प्राजिकारी मामले की ृठरजस्ट् जत ों को ध् ान में र ते हुए त ा जलज त प ृ में ििि दकए िाने वाले
कारणों से ऐसा करने की अनुमजत िेता िज।
( ) अजभकरण का कमिचारी दकसी अन् सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की सिा ता निीं लेगा जिसके ृास तीन
अनुिासनात्मक मामले लंजबत िों जिनमें उसे सिा ता िेनी िज।
(ग) अजभकरण का कमिचारी अृनी ओर से मामला प्रस्ट्तुत करने के जलए सेवाजनवषत्त सरकारी कमिचारी ा लोक सेवक की
सिा ता भी ले सकता िज, बिते दक भारत सरकार द्वारा इस संबंि में सम -सम ृर सामान् ा जविेप आिेि द्वारा
जनर्ििष्ट ितें लागू िों।
(6) उि जन मों के जन म 14 के ृश्चात् जनम्नजलज त जन म अंतःस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“14-क. सेवाजनवषजत्त ा अजिवर्पिता के बाि अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी िारी र ना:
(1) अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी, दि अजभकरण कमिचारी के सेवा में रिने के िौरान िुप की गई ी, चािे वि उसकी
सेवाजनवषजत्त से ृिले िो ा उसकी ृुनर्नि ुजि के िौरान, कमिचारी की अंजतम सेवाजनवषजत्त के बाि, चालू मानी िाएगी और
उसे उस प्राजिकारी द्वारा िारी र ा िाएगा और समाप्त दक ा िाएगा, जिसके द्वारा उसे उसी तरि िुप दक ा ग ा ा
िजसे दक अजभकरण का कमिचारी सेवा में बना िो।
3274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) अनुिासनात्मक का िवािी के लंजबत रिने के िौरान, अजभकरण के कमिचारी के सेवाजनवषजत्त लाभ केन्री सरकार के
संबंजित जन मों के प्राविानों के अनुसार त दक े िाएंगे।
(7) उि जन मों के जन म 19 में ंड (i) के जलए जनम्नजलज त ंड प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“(i) वेतन मजठरक्स में स्ट्तर 13 ा उससे ऊृर के वेतन वाले ृि को छोड़कर अजभकरण द्वारा दि ा ग ा दकसी आिेि, की
अृील केंर सरकार को की िाएगी;”
(8) उि जन मों के जन म 21 में, उृ- ंड (3) के जलए जनम्नजलज त उृजन म प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाित्:-
“(3) अजभकरण का कोई कमिचारी, वेतन मजठरक्स में स्ट्तर 13 ा उससे ऊृर के वेतन वाले ृि को छोड़कर जिस में अृील
केंरी सरकार को की िाएगी, जन म 8 में जवजनर्ििष्ट दकसी भी िंड को लागू करने वाले आिेि के जवरुद्ध अध् क्ष को अृील
कर सकता िज, दि ऐसा िंड अजभकरण के दकसी कमिचारी ृर सं ुि ृरामिि और अजनवा ि मध् स्ट् ता ोिना में भाग
लेने वाले दकसी संघ, मिासंघ ा ूजन न के ृिाजिकारी के प ृ में उसके का ि से िुड़ी गजतजवजि ों के संबंि में अध् क्ष के
अलावा दकसी अन् प्राजिकारी द्वारा लगा ा िाता िज तो ”उृ-जन म (1) ा उृ-जन म (2) के तित उसके जलए ऐसी कोई
अृील निीं की िाएगी।
(फा. सं. के-16012/7/2022-जन ाित जनरीक्षण)
िृिण िजन, सं ुि सजचव
नोट: मूल जन म भारत के रािृत्र, भाग II , ंड 3, उृ ंड (II) में अजिसूचना सं् ा एस.ओ.43 दिनांक 7 िनवरी,
1978 द्वारा प्रकाजित दकए गए े और तत्ृश्चात् अजिसूचना सं् ा एस.ओ. 1443 दिनांक 5 मई, 1979,
एस.ओ.2982 दिनांक 1 जसतंबर, 1979, एस.ओ.1019 दिनांक 19 अप्रजल, 1980,एस.ओ.557 दिनांक 6 फरवरी
1982, एस.ओ.2632 दिनांक 14 अक्टूबर 1989 और िी.एस.आर.622 दिनांक 31 मई 1993 द्वारा संिोजित दकए
गए।
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024
S.O. 1466.—In exercise of powers conferred by section 17 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Act, 1963 (the 22 of 1963), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Export
Inspection Agency Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978, namely:-
3.
(1) These rules may be called the Export Inspection Agency Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Amendment Rules, 2024.
(2) They shall come into force from 31.07.2024.
4.
In the Export Inspection Agency Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as the said rules), for rule 5, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“5.
For the purpose of these rules, the Agency employees shall be classified into the following three Groups,
namely:
Group A – A post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 10 or above.
Group B – A post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level from 6 to 9.
Group C – A post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level from 1 to 6.
Note: Post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 6 having designation of Technical Officer and
Section Officer only will be classified into Group B and others will be in Group C.”
3. In rule 6 of the said rules,-
(a) for sub-rule (5), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(5)
(a) Subject to sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall
continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.
(b) Where an Agency employee is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in connection
with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise), and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against
him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may,
for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Agency employee shall continue to be under
suspension until the termination of all or any of such proceedings.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3275
(c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any time be modified
or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which
that authority is subordinate.”.
(b) after sub-rule (5), the following sub-rules shall be inserted, namely:-
“(6)
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority
which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension
order and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension and subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry
of the extended period of suspension and extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and
eighty days at a time.
(7)
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) shall not be valid after a
period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days:
Provided that review of suspension shall not be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the
Agency employee continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the
ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Agency employee detained in custody is released from
detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority,
whichever is later.”.
4. In rule 8 of the said rules,-
(a) after clause (iii), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-
“(iii a) reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.”;
(b) for clause (v), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
“(v) save as provided for in clause (iii a), reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period,
with further directions as to whether or not the Agency employee will earn increments of pay during the period of
such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing
the future increments of his pay”;
(c) for clauses (viii) and (ix), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
“(viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or
Agency; and
(ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government
or Agency.”.
5. In rule 11 of the said rules,-
(a) for sub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of opinion that there are grounds forinquiring into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour againstan Agency employee, it may itself inquire intoor appoint under this
rule or under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth
thereof:
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in the Office for inquiring into such
complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of
these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the
Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as
practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules.
Explanation.- Where the disciplinary authority-
(iii)
itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring
authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority; or
(iv)
appoints a retired Government servant or Public Servant as inquiring authority, any reference in sub-rule
(7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) shall include such authority.”;
(b) for sub-rule (8), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(8)
(a) The Agency employee may take the assistance of any other Government servant or Public Servant posted
in any office either at his headquarters or at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the case on his
behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by
the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the
circumstances of the case, so permits:
3276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Provided that the Agency employee may take the assistance of any other Government servant or Public Servant
posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to
be recorded in writing, so permits.
(b) The Agency employee shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant or Public Servant who has
three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.
(c) The Agency employee may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant or Public Servant to present
the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government of India from time to time
by general or special order in this behalf.”
(6) After rule 14 of the said rules, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:-
“14-A. Continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings after retirement or superannuation.-
(1) Disciplinary proceedings, if instituted while the agency employee was in service whether before his retirement or
during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceeding and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the agency employee
had continued in service.
(2) During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits to the Agency employee shall be
decided in accordance with the provisions of the respective rules of the Central Government as applicable.”.
(7) In rule 19 of the said rules, for clause (i), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
“(i) any order made by the Council except for the post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 13 or above in
which case the appeal shall be made to the Central Government;”.
(8) In rule 21 of the said rules, for sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
“(3) An Agency employee may prefer an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 8 to
the Chairman, except for the post carrying the pay in the pay matrix at the level 13 or above in which case the appeal
shall be made to the Central Government, where no such appeal lies to him under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), if such
penalty is imposed by any authority other than the Chairman on such Agency employee in respect of his activities
connected with his work as an office bearer of an association, federation or union participating in the Joint
Consultation and Compulsory arbitration Scheme.”
[F. No. K-16012/7/2022-Export Inspection]
DARPAN JAIN, Jt. Secy.
Note.- The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide notification
number S.O. 43 dated the 7th January 1978 and subsequently amended vide notifications numbers S.O. 1443 ,
dated the 5th May 1979, S.O. 2982, dated the 1st September 1979, S.O.1019, dated the 19th April 1980,
S.O.557, dated the 6th February 1982, S.O.2632, dated the 14th October 1989 and G.S.R.622, dated the 31st
May 1993.
वस्त्र मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1467.—केन् र सरकार, रािभापा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म
10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, वस्त्र मंत्राल के अंतगित आने वाले जनम्नजलज त का ािल ों, जिसके 80% से अजिक
कमिचाठर ों ने लिंिी का का िसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िजः-
क्रम सं.
का ािल ों के नाम
1.
राष्ट्री फजिन प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, जनफ्ट, छेब, कांगडा, जिमाचल प्रिेि।
2.
रेिमकीट बीि उत् ृािन केंर, रा् री रेिमकीट बीि संग न, केंरी रेिम बोडि, ृावर
िाउस रोड/लद्दन, उिमृुर-182101 (िम् मू व कश् मीर)
3.
ृी2 मूल बीि फामि, रा् री रेिमकीट बीि संग न, केंरी रेिम बोडि, िीिमवाडा, िेरृुर िेिरािून,
उत् तरा ंड-248197
4.
रेिमकीट बीि उत् ृािन केंर, रा् री रेिमकीट बीि संग न, केंरी रेिम बोडि, जवमल लसंि रोड, लालदिजि, बिरमृुर-
मुर्ििाबाि-742101 (ृजश्चम बंगाल)
[फा. सं. ई-11016/2/2023-लिंिी]
अज लेि कुमार, उृ मिाजनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3277
MINISTRY OF TEXTILE
New Delhi, the 13th May, 2024
S.O. 1467.—In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of Rule 10 of the Official language (Use for official Purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textile, more
than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
Sr. No.
Name of offices
1.
National Institute of Fashion Technology, NIFT Campus Cheb, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh
2.
Silkworm Seed Production Centre, National Silkworm Seed Organization, Central Silk Board, Powe
House Road/Laddan, Udhampur-182101 (Jammu and Kashmir)
3.
P2 Basic Seed Farm, National Silkworm Seed Organization, Central Silk Board, Shishamwada, Sherpur
Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248197
4.
Silkworm Seed Production Centre, National Silkworm Seed Organization, Central Silk Board, Vimal
Singh Road, Laldidhi, Baharampur-Murshidabad-742101 (West Bengal)
[F. No. E-11016/2/2023-Hindi]
AKHILESH KUMAR, Deputy Director General
रेल मंत्राल
(रेलवे बोडि)
नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2024
का.आ. 1468.—मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडि), रािभापा जन म 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलज त का ािल ों ििां 80 प्रजतित से अजिक
अजिकाठर ों/कमिचाठर ों ने लिंिी का का िसाि क ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िज:-
1.
रेल िावा अजिकरण, रांची ृी
2.
रेल िावा अजिकरण, इलािाबाि ृी
[फा. सं. लिंिी-2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1824246)]
डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक (रािभापा)
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(Railway Board)
New Delhi, the 20th May, 2024
S.O. 1468.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the Official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where
80% or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench.
2.
Railway Claims Tribunal, Allahabad Bench.
[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L-1/12/1/(1824246]
Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director(O. L.)
नई दिल्ली, 5 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1469.—रेल मंत्राल (रेलवे बोडि), रािभापा जन म, 1976 (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए
प्र ोग) के जन म-10 के उृजन म(2) और (4) के अनुसरण में जनम्नजलज त का ािल ों ििाँ 80 प्रजतित से अजिक
अजिकाठर ों/ कमिचाठर ों ने लिंिी का का िसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करता िज:-
3278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. मु् कार ाना प्रबंिक, सवारी जडब्बा मरम्मत कार ाना, जतरुृजत.
2. रेलटेल कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड, ृूवी क्षेत्री का ािल , कोलकाता, ृजश्चम बंगाल.
3. राइट्स जलजमटेड, ृठर ोिना ूजनट, जसकंिराबाि.
4. रेल िावा अजिकरण, गोर ृुर ृी
[फा. सं. ह िंदी -2023/रा.भा.-1/12/1/(1814373)]
डॉ. बरुण कुमार, जनिेिक (रािभापा)
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2024
S.O. 1469.—Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) and (4) of Rule-10 of the
Official Langauge Rules, 1976 (Use for the Official Purpose of the Union) hereby, notify the following offices where
80 percent or more officers/employees have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-
1.
Chief Workshop Manager, Carriage Repair Workshop, Tirupati.
2.
RailTel Corporation of India Ltd, Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata, West Bengal.
3.
Rites Ltd., Project Unit, Secunderabad.
4.
Railway Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench.
[F. No. Hindi-2023/O.L.1/12/1/ (1814373)]
Dr. BARUN KUMAR, Director (O. L.)
श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1470.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससि दिनेि कुमार स्ट्वजन; जसक् ोठरटी एंड इंटेजलिेंस सर्विस (इंजड ा) जलजमटेड; भारत ृेरोजल म कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के
प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री कान्ू चरण ृजकरे के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं
श्रम न् ा ाल , भुबनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ठरफेरेंस न.-43/2021) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. िेड -16025/04/2024-आईआर(एम)-83]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 43/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Dinesh
Kumar Swain; Security and Intelligence Service (India) Limited; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Shri
Kanhu Charan Paikray 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)-83]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3279
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 43/2021
Date of Passing Order – 17th May, 2024
Between:
1. M/s. Dinesh Kumar Swain, Security Agency,
HIG-194, KananVihar, Patia, Phase-2,
Chadrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar – 751 031.
2. Security and Intelligence Service (India) Ltd. Mig10a(c)
K-9-A, Kalinga Vihar P.O. Patrapada,
P.S. Khandagiri, Khurda – 751 -19, Odisha, Patrapada,
Khordha, Odisha – 751 019.
3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Khordha, Odisha
…
1st Party-Managements.
(And)
Sri KanhuCharanPaikray,
S/o. JudhistiraPiakray,
At. Kumar Khatia, P.O. Jatni,
Dist. Khurda – 752 050.
…
2nd Party-Workman.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Workman.
O R D E R
In the present case, a reference was received from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central), Bhubaneswar vide order No. 8(285)/2019-B.II dated 24.12.2020 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the following
schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Dinesh Kumar Swain, Security Agency, Contractor of
BPCL, LPG Plant, Industrial Estate, Khurda by not redeploying Shri Kanhu Charan Paikaray, Security
Guard is his old assignment and without adhering Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and/or
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the Deputy chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar commanded the
parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses
with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim
to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-workman.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Workman on 20.12.2021 and on dated
03.04.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-
Workman, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained
unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Workman. Despite service of the notice,the 2nd Party-Workman opted to
abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-
Workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Workman has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
3280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
SRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1471.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससि बोलानी ओरे माइंस, सेल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और बोलानी ीका मज़िूर संघ (बीएमएस) के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुबनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ठरफेरेंस न.-36/2020) को
िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -26011/23/2017-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1471.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 36/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Bolani Ore Mines, SAIL and Bolani Thika Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-26011/23/2017-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 36/2020
Date of Passing Order – 26th April, 2024
Between :-
The General Manager (Mines),
M/s. Bolani Ore Mines, SAIL, RMD,
At./Po. Bolani, Dist. Keonjhar, Odisha.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
The General Secretary,
BolaniThikaMazdoorSangh, (BMS),
At./Po. Bolani, Dist. Keonjhar, Odisha.
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3281
O R D E R
In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-26011/23/2017 – IR(M), dated 14.12.2020 under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,
under the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bolani Ore Mines, SAIL, RMD in denying payment of
Additional Welfare Amenity allowance to the drivers engaged through contractor M/s. Mahajan
Chowdhary, Keonjhar, for hiring of 8 number of vehicles vide work order No. CC/115/16-17/B-1327,
dated 29.09.2016 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New
Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of
such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 21.02.2022 and on dated
08.08.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union,
referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the
period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served
upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
SRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1472.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससि बे एक्सप्लोरेिन प्रोिेक्ट ऑफ ऑ ल इंजड ा जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मिानिी ृेरोजल म
एक्सप्लोरेिन एम्ृलॉईस ूजन न (ऑ ल) के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम
न् ा ाल , भुबनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ठरफेरेंस न.-22/2020) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो
केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल -30011/12/2020-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 22/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to M/s Bay Exploration Project of Oil India Limited and Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Employees Union
(OIL) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-30011/12/2020-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
3282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 22/2020
Date of Passing Order – 26th April, 2024
Between :-
The Executive Director,
M/s. Bay Exploration Project of Oil India Ltd.,
IDCO Tower (3rd Floor), Bhubaneswar – 751 022
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
The General Secretary,
Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Employees; Union (OIL),
C/o. Oil India Ltd., IDCO Tower (3rd Floor),
Bhubaneswar (Odisha) – 751 022
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
O R D E R
In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-30011/12/2020 – IR(M), dated 22.07.2020 under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,
under the following schedule:-
“Whether the management of Bay Exploration Project of Oil India Ltd., Bhubaneswar is justified in
denying the participation of Mahanadi Petroleum Exploration Employees Union (OIL) to attend COD,
Promotion policy and other meeting? If not, what relief the union is entitled to?”
2.
In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New
Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of
such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 15.10.2020 and on dated
17.04.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union,
referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the
period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served
upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
SRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3283
नई दिल्ली, 19 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1473.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री सरकार
मेससि नालको जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और नालको एम्ृलॉईस संघ के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट केन्री
सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , भुबनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ठरफेरेंस न.-07/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 18.07.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-43011/5/2018-आईआर(एम)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2024
S.O. 1473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 07/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s NALCO
Limited and NALCO Employees Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 18.07.2024.
[No. L-43011/5/2018-IR(M)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 07/2019
Date of Passing Order – 26th April, 2024
Between :-
The General Manager (S & P),
M/s. NALCO Ltd., Post – Nalco Nagar,
District – Angul, (Odisha) – 759 145.
…
1st Party-Management.
(And)
The General Secretary,
NALCO Employees Sangh, Post – Nalco Nagar,
District – Angul (Odisha) – 759 145
…
2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
None.
…
For the 1st Party-Management.
None.
…
For the 2nd Party-Union.
O R D E R
In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-43011/5/2018 – IR(M), dated 07.01.2019 under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,
under the following schedule:-
3284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the proceedings of domestic enquiry in respect Shri Sudhir Mohan Naik, P. No. 05567 by the
management of National Aluminium Co. Ltd., Angul are vitiated and not as per principle of natural
justice? If yes, what relief Shri Naik is entitled to? What other directions, if any, are necessary in the
matter?”
2.
In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New
Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of
such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
3.
Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union.
4.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 05.04.2019 and on dated
01.02.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union,
referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the
period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served
upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in
adjudication of the reference on merits.
5.
Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its
cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.
6.
In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal.
7.
Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, for publication.
SRI DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer
(जिन्िी अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1474.—केंर सरकार, रािभापा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 ( ा
संिोजित, 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल के प्रिासकी जन ंत्रणािीन
जनम्नजलज त का ािल ों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमिचाठर ों ने जिन्िी का का िसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज,
एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1. कमिचारी राज् बीमा जनगम उृ क्षेत्री का ािल , मंगलुरु (कनािटक)
2. कमिचारी राज् बीमा जनगम उृ क्षेत्री का ािल , कोजपकोड (केरल)
3. कमिचारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, बाड़ी ब्राह्मणा, िम्मू
[सं.ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी:]
नागेि कुमार लसंि, उृमिाजनिेिक
(Hindi Section)
New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2024
S.O. 1474.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi:-
1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Sub-Regional Office, Mangaluru (Karnataka)
2. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Sub-Regional Office, Kozhikode (Kerala)
3. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Bari Brahmana, Jammu
[No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN]
NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3285
नई दिल्ली, 25 िुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1475.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
यूको बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV ( 08 C of 2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/96/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2024
S.O. 1475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08 C of 2016) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/96/2015-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before The Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
Reference Case No.:-08 (C) of 2016
Between the management of the Chairman UCO Bank, H.O:- 10, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 And Their
workmen represented through the State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Saboo Complex, 2nd floor, Behind
Republic Hotel Exhibition Road, Patna (Bihar)-1.
For the management:-
Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate.
For the workman:-
Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association.
Present:-
Manoj Shankar
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
A W A R D
Patna, dt- 5th June, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- L-12011/96/2015-IR (B-II) New Delhi, dated- 16.02.2016 the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”) the following dispute between the management of
the Chairman UCO Bank, H.O:- 10, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 And Their workmen represented through the State
Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association, Saboo Complex, 2nd floor, Behind Republic Hotel Exhibition Road, Patna
(Bihar)-1. for adjudication to this tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the workmen whose name has been enlisted in the Annexure working as part time sweeper for more
than 10 years in UCO Bank are entitled to be regularized as part-time sweeper? It not what relief they are entitled
for?”
2.
It is worth mentioning here that the workmen side filed statement of claim on 30.08.2018 without disclosing the
name of any workmen whose dispute is connected with this reference later on the list of workers on whose behalf the
dispute has been raised by the representative of workmen is received from Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Patna on
04.12.2019 that shows the dispute is of 18 named workers was raised. It is further mentioned here that even after receiving
3286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the list of workmen the representative of workmen did not file fresh statement of claim, however this tribunal has directed
the workmen side several times.
3.
As per statement of claim filed on behalf of the workman side on 30.08.2018 discloses the facts that union has
raised an Industrial Dispute before conciliation officer for regularization the service of temporary workmen performing the
duties of sweeper. It is further averred that the management submitted rejoinder and lastly submitted annexed only one copy
containing of part time sweeper working in three zones Patna, Begusarai & Bhagalpur but no copy handed over to the
representative of the workmen. It is further asserted that management submitted the number of part time sweeper working
in 63 branches of the bank before the Chair person of national commission of Safai Karamchari. It is asserted that
management had issued circular no.- HO/HRM/RECR/2013-14/30 dated- 22.04.2014 through which particulars of sweepers
working as on 31.03.2012 was asked for accordingly names of the workmen were sent to the Head office through Zonal
Office. It is further asserted that after asking the names of sweepers, management conducted written tests / interviews for
appointing for fresh hands as peons, Part Time Sweeper and they also regularized the services of part time sweeper but
large number were left out. It is further asserted that matter was raised before National Commission for Safai Karamchari
and the management had assured to regularize the services of Part Time Sweeper as per Bi-partite Settlement. But none of
the workmen is being paid wages as per Bipartite Settlement and minimum wages is not paid to them. It is further asserted
that the workmen has been discharging the duties from 9.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M they have been performing the duties like the
opening of bank gates, sweeping and cleaning branches premises bringing and serving water, posting of mails and other
sundry works. It is further asserted that the workmen are being paid wages through debit vouchers. It is further asserted that
the union has been taken up the case of the workmen for regularization their services but no positive has been taken and
thus the action of the management constitutes Unfair Labour Practices as per Section 25 (T) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It
is further asserted that the workman have been working against the permanent vacant post of sweeper and the duties of
workmen are perennial in nature. The management over looked the provision of Bipartite Settlement through which
minimum wages of a part time sweeper should have been 1/3rd pay of a full time Subordinate staff and thus management
violated the provision of 9th Bipartite Settlement. The workmen pray for the following relief:-
(i)
Regularization of services as a Part Time Sweeper from 01.05.2010 as per 9th Bipartite Settlement;
(ii)
Payment of due wages from date of their working;
(iii)
Any other relief (S) as the tribunal deem and fit and proper.
4.
On the other hand the management filed written statement on 26.12.2022 and stated therein that the present
application is not maintainable before this tribunal as u/s- 2A ( 1 & 2 ) is applicable only for the dispute of dismissal,
discharge or termination. No case of regularization can be filed by the union. It is further asserted that no authority has been
filed on behalf of the workman authorizing the said secretary Sri B. Prasad to represent them before this tribunal as per
rules of Industrial Dispute Act. It is further asserted that Reference Case involves fours Zones of the UCO Bank. So far as
Begusarai Zones is concerned there are two claimants, (1) Yugal Kishore Mahto ( Chaurahi Branch ) whose names is given
in Reference Case No.- 05 (C) of 2016 and (2) Mr. Shambhu Yadav ( Supaul Branch ) and these workman are engaged on
the basis of as and when required for cleaning and sweeping purpose only and they have been paid against the work done
by the them with the prevalent rates. So far as the workman Patna Zone of UCO Bank is concerned there are five claimants
Arun Kumar ( Hazipur Branch ) and Arjun Pd. Singh ( Zonal Office Patna ) are also a party in Reference Case No.- 05(C)
of 2016. The workman Pawan Kumar, shown working at Lakhisarai Branch of UCO Bank branch. The claim of one Pawan
Kumar is also in the Reference Case No.- 05 (C) of 2016. It is further asserted that Santu Kumar shows working Zonal
Office, Patna but the facts is he is not working in Zonal Office one workman Munna Kumar is working in Sono Branch of
UCO Bank is also on the basis of as and when required. It is further asserted that the workman of Bhagalpur Zone are seven
in number out of seven, one Sudama Prasad working in Katoriya Branch is also a party in Reference Case No.- 05 (C) of
2016. One workman Dablu Kumar was engaged in Tarar Branch as and when required basis. His name is mentioned in the
claim without any reason. So far as claim of Om Prakash Tweary is concerned he never worked in Dholbazza branch of
UCO Bank. Claim of Ravi Kant Prasad is shown working in Sanokharhat Branch and Sheo Prasad Sah is shown working at
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट् त 3, 2024/श्रावण 12, 1946
3287
Sajour Branch are not correct there is no record available of these workmen in the said branch. The claimant Binod Paswan
shown working at Bhagalpur main branch but no record available in the said branch. One workman S.K. Jaiswal was
engaged in Rangra Branch on the basis of as and when required for cleaning work purpose only. It is further asserted was
there are three claimants of Ranchi Zones, Ramakant Prasad ( Ranchi Branch ), Pramod Kumar Singh ( Bero Branch ), and
Prakash Ram ( Bermo Branch ) and they are engaged by the management bank as and when required for the only cleaning
purpose and they have been paid against work done by the them with the prevalent rate. It is further asserted that bank has
formulated its own recruitment policy considering government guidelines and common recruitment process adopted by
Nationalized Bank. It is further asserted that the workman related to the Ranchi Zones are working within the territorial
jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand so their dispute can’t be heard in this Industrial Tribunal. It is further asserted that it is
well settled position of law that public sector bank are not precluded to engage the services of casual worker / labor on daily
wages basis as per requirement. The said casual workers have no right to continue their services as a matter of right. It is
further asserted that the dispute of the workmen were purely of need based as and when required. So the claim of
regularization is misconceived and this is not maintainable at all. Management bank has not violated any provision of the
I.D.Act like 25 (T), 25 (F) as per the claim of the workman sides. So workmen sides are not entitled for any relief.
5.
Having gone through the statement of claim of the workmen, it is evident that the representative of the workmen
never disclosed the names of the workmen whose dispute is involved in this Reference and even after receiving the list of
the workman from the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Patna on 04.12.2019, the representative of the workman did not
file any fresh statement of claim inspite of repeated direction given by this tribunal and the objection raised by the
management as well however management side filed written statement disclosing the details of alleged workman whose
dispute is raised before the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Patna. Management side clearly disclosed some
workmen’s dispute are already in Reference Case No.- 05(C) of 2016 and the duties of other workman are taken by the
management bank purely as and when required basis.
6.
From perusal of the case record, it appears that no workmen as per the list given by the Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (C) Patna to this tribunal on 04.12.2019 turned up before this tribunal. This is clear cut indication that the
representative of the workman was never connected with the any workmen on whose behalf the dispute was raised before
Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Patna the representative of the workman started stressing a point, complete list of
workmen is not sent by the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Patna but the list of the workmen whose issue was raised
was sent to this tribunal on 04.12.2019, the representative of the workman never called any workman for the redressal of
their dispute before this tribunal. Non appearance of any workmen before this tribunal clearly shows that none of the
workman has any grievance with the management bank that’s why no workmen turned up whose names are given in the
list. This tribunal further finds that when workmen did not turn-up before this tribunal for the their grievances, the
representative of the workman filed a petition on 20.09.2023 mentioning therein sponsoring union is not inclined to proceed
further in the dispute. This petition is indicative of the facts, the workmen whose list is sent by Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (C) Patna to this tribunal has no grievances at all that’s why sponsoring union is not inclined to proceed
further in this case.
7.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this reference case this tribunal finds and hold that the representative
of the workmen did not come up with clean hand as he failed to disclosed the names of the workmen and further failed to file
fresh statement of claim after receiving the list of workmen whose issue was raised before the Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (C) Patna and later on filling a petition mentioning therein sponsoring union is not inclined to proceed
further, So this tribunal has option than to pass “No Dispute Award” accordingly. This award is effected after date of
publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
MANOJ SANKAR, Presiding Officer
3288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1476.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िर्भ संख्या
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/327/2001-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मणिकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2024
S.O. 1476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.23/2002) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/07/2024.
[No. L-22012/327/2001– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 23 OF 2002
PARTIES: Amal Majhi
Vs.
Management of Nimcha Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
21.06.2024
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/327/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.2002 and Corrigendum No. L-22012/327/2001-IR(C-II) dated
13.09.2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Nimcha
Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of ECL, Nimcha Colliery in not giving pay protection to Sh. Amal
Majhi upon deployment in Category II from Cat. IV as consequence of employment related injury is just fair and
legal? If not to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3289
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/327/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 30.07.2002 and Corrigendum No.
L-22012/327/2001-IR(C-II) dated 13.09.2002 from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 23 of 2002 was registered on 13.08.2002 and an order was passed
for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements
along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar of Koyala Mazdoor Congress represented the case of Amal Majhi and filed a written
statement in support of the Industrial Dispute raised by him. In gist, the facts leading to this Industrial Dispute is
that Amal Majhi was posted as a Fitter Helper at Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred as ECL) and appointed as Stone Cutter in Category – IV at Nimcha Colliery. He met with an
accident while on duty of the company and suffered injury on 12.07.1990. Amal Majhi received medical treatment for
his injury at Central Hospital at Kalla under ECL. He suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of ten percent
(10%) and was advised for lighter job. The management of the company issued an order dated 21.02.1992 and posted
him to perform the work of a Fitter Helper in Category – II at a basic wage of Rs. 51.24/- (Fifty-one rupees and
twenty-four paise only) per day which is the initial basic wages in Category – II. Prior to the accident Amal Majhi
was getting wages of Rs. 54.06/- (Fifty-four rupees and six paise only) in Category – IV. Even on his deployment as a
Fitter Helper he continued to receive wages of Rs. 54.06/- till his regularization in the post of Fitter Helper. Being
aggrieved with reduction of pay and his pay not being protected on his deployment from higher to lower category for
no fault of his own, the workman has raised this Industrial Dispute claiming protection of pay as per his Basic in
Category – IV. Initially the matter was raised before the management and Note Sheet dated 25.03.2000 was sent to
the Area Office and again on 12.09.2001 but no action was taken by the management. The union has contended that
the management deliberately deprived the workman of his legitimate protection of basic wages, causing financial loss
to him. It has been prayed that Amal Majhi should be given wage protection at the time of his conversion to the post
of Fitter Helper in Category – II and he should be paid arrears of difference of wages.
3.
Management contested the case by filing written statement on 03.02.2015 and contested the claim raised on
behalf of Amal Majhi. The specific case of the management is that the workman voluntarily applied for light job soon
after recovery and the management deputed him as a Fitter Helper in Category – II from his earlier job of Stone
Cutter in Category – IV. The workman was paid the basic wages available to Category – II workers and he is not
entitled to the basic wages under Category – IV as it is against the principle of Equality and the law. According to the
management the nature of job allotted to the workman has changed and he is entitled to the wages commensurating
with his nature of work.
4.
In order to substantiate their case, the union examined Amal Majhi as Workman Witness – 1. He filed an
affidavit-in-chief on 25.08.2016, wherein he stated that he met with an accident in the mines and was injured while on
duty on 12.07.1990. The doctor advised the management to deploy him in any other lighter job and the Compensation
Board declared that Amal Majhi has suffered ten percent (10%) permanent partial disability. He further stated that
management regularized him in the post of Fitter Helper in Category – II and reduced his basic wages, which he was
receiving in Category – IV. His basic was fixed at Rs. 51.24/- in Category – II while he was receiving basic of Rs.
54.06/- per day in Category – IV. The workman in his affidavit-in-chief has stated that according to the guidelines and
the prevailing practice of the Company whenever management deployed worker from higher category to lower
category, the wages paid to the workman in higher category and increment earned by the workman is protected, but in
the present case the management has not followed such practice and guidelines. The workman witness was recalled
for his evidence and production of documents on 26.06.2023. In course of his evidence on recall he has produced the
following documents :
(i)
A copy of the Injury Report dated 12.07.1990 has been produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Accident Report dated 17.07.1990, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Outdoor Patient Ticket relating to the treatment of Amal Majhi, commencing from
12.07.1990 beyond 10.09.1990, as Exhibit W-3 collectively.
(iv)
Copy of the Office Order dated 21.02.1992 directing Amal Majhi to work as a Fitter Helper in
Category – II with a basic of Rs. 51.24/-, as Exhibit W-4.
5.
In cross-examination workman witness – 1 has deposed that after his deployment in the post of Fitter Helper
he was paid less basic wages of Rs. 51.24/- per day and he did not raise any objection. He also admitted that work of a
Fitter Helper is a lighter job than the work performed by a Stone Cutter in Category – IV. The workman deposed that
after the accident he sought for a lighter job.
6.
Mr. Sumit Choudhary, Deputy Personnel Manager, Nimcha Colliery has been examined as Management
Witness – 1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief in support of management’s case. Witness stated that Amal Majhi
voluntarily applied for lighter job soon after recovery from illness and after considering all aspects he was deployed
as a Fitter Helper in Category – II from the job of a Stone Cutter in Category – IV. The witness further stated that he
3290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was paid the basic wages of Category – II as per National Coal Wage Agreement and the basic wages under Category
– II was well protected. The management witness has produced a copy of the Office Order dated 21.02.1992 as
Exhibit M-1 and a copy of the Report of Disablement Assessment Medical Board held at Central Hospital, Kalla on
27.11.1992, as Exhibit M-II. According to the management the workman is not entitled to the protection of pay which
he was receiving in a higher category.
7.
In course of cross-examination the witness stated that he was unable to produce any document to show that
the workman agreed to the change in his category of employment. He also deposed that on request of the workman,
the management converted him from Category – IV to Category – II due to his injuries.
8.
The short question for consideration before this Tribunal is whether Amal Majhi is entitled to protection of
pay on being deputed in Category – II from his earlier employment in Category – IV, which occurred due to the injury
sustained by him.
9.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative advancing his argument submitted that the workman was
receiving a basic pay of Rs. 54.06/- while he was working as a Stone Cutter in Category – IV. He met with an
accident in the mines on 12.07.1990 due to his employment and was under medical treatment at Central Hospital,
Kalla. His treatment continued beyond 10.09.1990 (Exhibit W-3). The workman suffered ten percent permanent
partial disability and a compound fracture in his left thumb. The Board members declared him fit for his designated
job. Referring to Exhibit M-II, Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued that on joining his duty the management issued an order on
21.02.1992, whereby Amal Majhi was deputed to work as a Fitter Helper in Category – II with a basic wage of a
Fitter Helper. It is submitted that there was no reflection in the office order that such arrangement had been made on
the prayer of the workman and no such document has been produced. The union representative argued that when a
workman suffers injury while at work, he does not deserve reduction of wages as this is done only in the case of
imposition of punishment due to fault or misconduct on the part of the workman. The union representative
vehemently argued that Amal Majhi who has now superannuated from his service is entitled to his difference of basic
pay (Rs. 54.06 – Rs. 51.24) which he was receiving in Category – IV per day from the date of his regularization in the
part of Fitter Helper in Category – II till his superannuation.
10.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management refuting the claim of the union argued that the
workman after his injury has recovered and found fit to work in Category – IV. It is submitted that the workman on
his own made representation before the management of the company for providing him with a lighter job. Since he
was granted such accommodation and was posted as a Fitter Helper in Category – II, by issuance of an Office Order
dated 21.02.1992 he had been informed that his basic wage would be Rs. 51.24/- per day. At this stage the workman
is not entitled to the pay attached to the post of Category – IV.
11.
Having considered the materials on record and argument advanced on behalf of the management and
union, I find that there is no disagreement between the parties that Amal Majhi was deployed as a Stone Cutter in
Category – IV at Nimcha Colliery where his Basic Wages was Rs. 54.06/- per day. It is also admitted that he met with
an accident in the mines in course of his employment and suffered an injury, resulted in ten percent permanent partial
disablement. On a perusal of the injury report (Exhibit W-1) and the report of Disablement Assessment Medical
Board dated 27.11.1992 (Exhibit M-II) it is gathered that the workman has suffered compound fracture in his left
thumb. The Outdoor Patient Ticket dated 12.07.1990 reveals that he suffered cut injury in his left thumb which
affected his skin, muscle, tendon and bone. It is goes without saying that a person suffering such injury in one of his
hands would be rendered less effective in his workplace and also in his personal life. I cannot be unmindful of the fact
that accidents are common features in the industrial establishment and in the present case the workman has suffered
injury while he was engaged in work. The management of the company cannot shrug its responsibility in providing
fair treatment to its workman who sustained loss while serving the employer company.
12.
There is no material on record to determine if the workman made any prayer and application before the
management to place him in an inferior category of work with less pay. The Office Order dated 21.02.1992 by which
the workman was deployed to the post of Fitter Helper in Category – II from his earlier post of Stone Cutter in
Category- IV does not bear any testimony to the fact that such arrangement was made on own seeking of the
workman. Such arrangement has been made due to exigency arising out of certain circumstances. In such a situation it
is illegal and unfair on the part of the management on reducing the Basic Wages of the workman from Rs. 54.06/- per
day to Rs. 51.24/- per day. The workman has rendered service and achieved the increments attached to his earlier post
of Stone Cutter in Category – IV which cannot be diluted. Therefore, it is just, appropriate and equitable to protect the
Basic Pay of the workman when he was deputed to a lower post of Fitter Helper in Category – II. In such view of the
matter, I am of the considered view that the management of Nimcha Colliery has acted in an illegal manner by
reducing the Basic Pay of the workman as if it was a punishment imposed upon him. In such a view of the matter the
management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of ECL is directed to protect the Basic Wages of Amal Majhi
with increment which he received during his deployment in Category – IV and pay him the difference of wages from
the date of his regularization in the post of Fitter Helper in Category – II till the date of his superannuation. The
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3291
Industrial Dispute is accordingly allowed on contest. The management is directed to pay the difference of wages to
the workman within a period of two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of the workman. Management is directed to protect
the Basic Pay along with increment of the workman, he was receiving at the time of his posting as a Stone Cutter in
Category – IV for the period from his regularization in the post of Fitter Helper in Category – II till the date of his
superannuation. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings in favour of the workman. Let copies of the
Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1477.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्िर्भ संख्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/10/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मणिकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2024
S.O. 1477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.11/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/07/2024.
[No. L-22012/10/2019–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 11 OF 2019
PARTIES: Kadna Majhi
Vs.
Management of Dalurband Colliery of ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
3292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated:
14.06.2024
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/10/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.02.2019 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Dalurband Colliery under Pandaveswar Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Dalurband Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area of Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. in dismissing Shri Kadna Majhi, Ex- Line Helper from the services of the company vide letter ref. no. 06 SF/P-
382(382) dated 02-05-2015 is legal and fair? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/10/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 04.02.2019 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11 of 2019 was registered on
18.02.2019 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
The dismissed workman filed his written statement on 14.02.2023 through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President,
Koyala Mazdoor Congress. The management contested the scheduled dispute by filing their written statement on
14.02.2023. In gist, the fact of workman’s case is that Kadna Majhi, Lineman (U.M. No. 197022) was posted at
Dalurband Colliery under Pandaveswar Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) was a
permanent employee of ECL. He could not attend his duty from 13.10.2012 to 22.01.2013 due to his illness. After
recovery from illness the workman reported for his duty. Management considered his request and issued a letter
bearing No. 0658/1285 dated 25/26.02.2013 allowing him to join his duty. Thereafter, the Manager (Personnel),
Dalurband Colliery issued an order bearing No. DC/PD/47/2399 dated 01.03.2013 addressed to Kadna Majhi asking
him to join his duty. At the relevant time Kadna Majhi was residing at Belbaid Colliery as he was not having any
quarters at Dalurband Colliery and the management did not communicate the joining order to him as a result he was
unaware about the same and failed to join his duty. Subsequently, when he came to know about the order of joining,
he went to the Colliery but he was not allowed to join and the management issued another Charge Sheet bearing No.
DC/PD/47/13/143 dated 22/24.04.2013 for his absence from 13.10.2012. Kadna Majhi was never served with the 2nd
Charge Sheet and the Enquiry Proceeding was held ex-parte. On conclusion of ex-parte proceeding the workman was
dismissed from his service. It is contended that no 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman and the
punishment imposed against him was disproportionate to the charge. Kadna Majhi denied that he was a habitual
absentee and that the period of his absence was for six months and ten days from 13.10.2012 to 22.04.2013 and
contended that he should not have been awarded the extreme punishment of dismissal for such absence as there was
non-communication of the joining order. The workman prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal and for his
reinstating him in service.
3.
The management of ECL in their written statement has submitted that Kadna Majhi absented from his duty
from 13.10.2012 without any authorization or leave or any information to the management. A Charge Sheet bearing
Ref. No. DC/PD/47/13/143 dated 22/24.04.2013 was issued to him as per Certified Standing Order. Kadna Majhi did
not reply to the Charge Sheet for which a Domestic Enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer issued Notice of Enquiry,
calling upon the workman to attend the Enquiry Proceeding. As the workman did not attend the Enquiry Proceeding,
the same was held ex-parte and the charge of unauthorized absence was fully established. According to the
management principles of natural justice was followed in course of the Enquiry Proceeding and a 2nd Show Cause
Notice was issued to Kadna Majhi vide Ref. No. 0642/P-696 dated 12/15.11.2014 which was sent to his home address
under registered post. It is the case of the management that the 2nd Show Cause Notice was also published in the daily
newspaper “Sambad” dated 16.02.2015 but there was no response from Kadna Majhi. after giving full opportunity to
the workman to join his duty he did not turn up and an order of termination was issued bearing Ref. No. 06 SF/P-382
dated 02.05.2015. According to the management Kadna Majhi was a habitual absentee and even after several
opportunities he did not make effective endeavor to continue his service. The management contended that the
punishment imposed upon the ex-workman is justified and is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. It is urged
that the action of the management is justified and the Industrial Dispute is required to be dismissed.
4.
The workman filed an affidavit-in-chief, reiterating the facts stated in the written statement and examined
himself as Workman Witness - 1. He has also produced some documents as follows:
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 22/24.04.2013 has been marked as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the order of termination dated 02.05.2015, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Mercy Petition dated 27.03.2017, as Exhibit W-3.
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3293
(iv)
Copy of the Appointment Letter dated 29.03.2011, as Exhibit W-4.
5.
In cross-examination the workman witness stated that he had no document to show that he was suffering
from Jaundice during his absence. He stated that he received all his letter at his village address noted in his service
record. The workman also admitted that he had remained absent for more than one year and did not attend the
enquiry.
6.
Management examined Mr. Dilip Kumar Samal, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Dalurband Colliery as
Management Witness – 1. The witness filed an affidavit-in-chief. In his evidence the witness stated that Kadna Majhi
was absenting from 13.10.2012 without any sanctioned or authorized leave or any information to the management.
Due to such absence, Charge Sheet dated 24.04.2013 was issued to him but no reply was submitted by Kadna Majhi.
The workman did not participate in the Enquiry Proceeding and the charge of unauthorized absence was fully proved
against the workman. It is averred that 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to Kadna Majhi vide Ref. No. 0642/P-696
dated 12/15.11.2014 and the same was sent to his home address but no reply was received. It is further stated that the
2nd Show Cause Notice was also published in the daily newspaper, “Sambad” dated 16.02.2015 but no reply was
received from the workman. According to the management Kadna Majhi was a habitual absentee and the Disciplinary
Authority allowed him time to join his duty but he did not join his duty and continued to remain absent and an order
of termination was issued on 02.05.2015. It is urged that the action of the management is totally justified in
dismissing the workman from service and the workman is not entitled to any relief. In support of his case
management witness produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 22/24.04.2013 has been marked as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 04.04.2014, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding and findings, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the 2nd Show Cause Notice dated 12/15.11.2014, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the order of dismissal dated 02.05.2015, as Exhibit M-5.
7.
The short question for consideration is whether the dismissal of Kadna Majhi by the management is justified,
if not to what relief the workman is entitled?
8.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that Kadna Majhi had absented from duty due to illness
from 13.10.2012 to 22.01.2013. After recovery from illness, he reported before the management for allowing him to
join duty and the management after considering his case issued a letter dated 25/26.02.2013, permitting him to join
his duty. Another order was issued by the colliery management on 01.03.2013 but these orders were not
communicated to Kadna Majhi. As a result, he was unable to join his duty. Without communication of such decision
of the management a 2nd Charge Sheet dated 22/24.04.2013 (Exhibit W-1) was issued to the workman. Management
without service of such Charge Sheet initiated an ex-parte enquiry proceeding against the workman. The union
representative vehemently argued that without service of the order of reinstatement, 2nd Charge Sheet, notice of
enquiry and 2nd Show Cause Notice, the workman was dismissed form his service and all these actions were taken
behind his back violating the principles of natural justice. it is submitted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar that the workman is
forty-five years of age and the order of dismissal (Exhibit W-4) should be set aside and the workman reinstated in the
service.
9.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL submitted that the management cannot prove
the service of Charge Sheet, Notice of enquiry, Enquiry Report and the 2nd Show Cause Notice to the workman. It is
contended that the workman has absented from his work from 13.10.2012 till issuance of 2nd Charge Sheet dated
22/24.04.2013 and there is no denial of the fact that the workman has absented from duty without leave or
authorization. It is urged that the order of dismissal issued against Kadna Majhi is proportionate and he is not entitled
to any relief.
10.
I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties and materials in record. The 2nd Charge
Sheet issued by the management bearing Ref. No. DC/PD/47/13/143 dated 22/24.04.2013 has clearly stated that
Kadna Majhi (UM No. 197022) had absented from his duty from 13.10.2012 to 22.01.2013 and considering his age,
management had taken a lenient view and allowed him to resume his duty after approval of the competent authority
by letter No. 0658/1285 dated 25/26.02.2013 and subsequently a joining order bearing No. DC/PD/47/2399 dated
01.03.2013 was issued by the Manager (Personnel), Dalurband Colliery but form the office records it was found that
Kadna Majhi did not report for his duty and his period of absence continued from 13.10.2012 till Charge Sheet was
issued on 22/24.04.2013 alleging serious misconduct and indiscipline under Clause 26.5 and 26.29 of the Certified
Standing Order applicable to ECL. It transpires from the content of the Charge Sheet that after considering the prayer
of the workman, his first span of absence was condoned, the management allowed him to resume his duty on the basis
of the letter dated 25/26.02.2013 followed by a joining letter dated 01.03.2013. It is not the case of the management
that the workman was allowed to join his duty straight away on his recovery from illness. The competent authority of
3294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the management took time to consider the prayer. There is no evidence on record, adduced by the management to
establish that the letters issued by the competent authority dated 25/26.02.2013 and subsequent joining letter dated
01.03.2013 issued by the Deputy Manager (Personnel), Dalurband Colliery were actually issued and communicated to
the workman. Keeping the workman in the dark the management proceeded to issue the 2nd Charge Sheet alleging
willful neglect of work and absence from duty beyond ten days, starting from the same time i.e. 13.10.2012 which had
already been considered and the workman was reprieved by allowing him to resume his duty. Mr. Dilip Kumar
Samal, the management witness in his evidence-in-chief admitted that he has no document to show that Charge Sheet,
Notice of enquiry and 2nd Show Cause Notice were served upon the workman. In the paragraph - 8 of his affidavit-in-
chief, MW-1 averred that 2nd Show Cause Notice was also published in the daily newspaper “Sambad” dated
16.02.2015 but no copy of the publication has been filed by the management witness in support of his claim.
11.
Now let us consider the legality of the Enquiry Proceeding conducted against the workman before his
dismissal. The management witness stated that Mr. D. Sutradhar, Sr. Manager (Min.) was the Enquiry Officer in this
case. No document has been filed to establish that the competent authority had appointed Mr. D. Sutradhar as Enquiry
Officer in this case. On considering the contents of Exhibit M-3, which is a copy of Enquiry Proceeding dated
09.08.2014, I find that the Domestic Enquiry was held on a single date i.e. on 09.08.2014. There is no reference to the
fact that the Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry were served upon the workman. It is gathered from the Enquiry
Proceeding that only Mr. D. Sutradhar, the Enquiry Officer and Mr. T. Chatterjee, management representative were
present. Kadna Majhi the charged employee was absent. There is no reflection in the Enquiry Report that the charge
levelled against the workman was communicated to him. The Enquiry Officer simply read the Charge Sheet on his
own and recorded the statement of Mr. T. Chatterjee, management representative. Finally, it was concluded that the
charge levelled against the workman was established and the Enquiry Report was submitted to the Senior Manager
(Min.), Manager, Senior Manager (Personnel). On a perusal of the Enquiry Report I find that the Enquiry Officer has
not recorded his satisfaction about service of the Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry to the workman.
Therefore, the ex-parte proceeding held against the workman without service of Charge Sheet and Noticeof enquiry is
grossly illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Proceeding as well as 2nd Show Cause
Notice, a copy of which has been produced as Exhibit M-3 and M-4 respectively are the documents which have no
relevance in the eye of law unless they are actually served upon the employee. To my mind the Enquiry Report and
the dismissal of the workman has been vitiated due to the arbitrary mode of proceeding conducted against the
workman without having no knowledge of such proceeding.
12.
Non-service of enquiry notice and copy of enquiry proceeding to the workman has been compounded by the
fact that the management of ECL has not issued 2nd Show Cause Notice to the workman, providing him opportunity to
make his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Formal production of Ex-parte Enquiry Report
and copy of 2nd Show Cause Notice without proof of their service upon the workman cannot be any assistance to the
case of the management. It is explicit that the management of ECL has failed to comply the legal mandate laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR
(1991) SC 471], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the law as follows:
“ When the Inquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of
the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the charges
levelled against him. A denial of the inquiry officer’s report before the Disciplinary Authority takes its decision on the
charges, is denial of opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of principles of natural
justice.”
The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was enforced by the Coal India Limited by way of issuing
a Circular bearing No. CIL C-5A(vi)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994, wherein it has been clearly laid down that the
charged employee had to be supplied with Enquiry Proceeding and Enquiry Report and a 2nd Show Cause Notice had
to be issued to him before taking any final decision of removing him from service. The management has not
compliedthe direction in their own company’s circular, therefore the order of dismissal of Kadna Majhi from service
is found improper, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The order of dismissal of Kadna Majhi
from his service, dated 02.05.2015 issued by the General Manager of Pandaveswar Area (Exhibit M-5) is found not
tenable under the facts and circumstances of this case.
13.
The order of dismissal of Kadna Majhi from his service dated 02.05.2015 issued by the General Manager of
Pandaveswar Area (Exhibit M-5) is hereby set aside. The management is directed to reinstate the workman to his
original post within one month from the date of communication of the Award. The period of his absence shall be
treated as dies non and he shall be entitled to his consequential benefits. Considering the fact that the workman has
not rendered any service to the employer company since 13.10.2012 till date and there being no evidence that he was
not engaged for any gainful employment, he shall not be entitled to any back wages for the entire period. His only
relief in this case is reinstatement in service for gross violation of natural justice by the employer company in the
process of dismissing.
Hence,
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3295
O R D E R E D
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed in favour of the workman on contest. the order of dismissal dated
02.05.2015 issued by the General Manager of Pandaveswar Area is illegal and set aside. The management is directed
to reinstate the workman to his original post within one month from the date of communication of the Award. An
award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1478.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह –
] हैिराबाि ds iapkV (पहचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/196/2011-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मणिकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2024
S.O. 1478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No.4/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/07/2024.
[No. L-22012/196/2011–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present:
Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 4/2012
Between:
Sri Riaz Ahmed,
General Secretary,
Singareni Miner & Engg. Workers Union (HMS),
Qtr.No.C-34, Sector-I,
Godavarikhani.
Karimnagar – 505209.
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
RG-I Area,
Godavarikhani,
3296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Karimnagar – 505209.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent :
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/196/2011-IR(CM-II) dated
13.12.011 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal
between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of S.C.C.L., RG-I Area Godavarikhani in imposing penalty of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide Order No.RG-I/PER/S/46/2280 dt.12.4.2004 against
Sri Gaje Shivaji, Timber man, GDK-5 Incline is justified and legal? To what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 4/2012 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:
It is submitted that, Sri Gaje Sivaji Timberman, GDK-5 Incline, is a member of our PetitionerUnion. The concerned
workman was issued with a charge sheet dt.5.7.2001 alleging that on 2.7.2001 in 2nd shift booked his IN muster and
participated in an illegal strike along with others demanding an apology from S.O.M., GDK-5 Incline, for felling a
tree in the mine premises. On receipt of the above charge sheet, the concerned workman submitted explanation on
5.8.2001 categorically denying the charge. However, without considering the submissions made by the concerned
workman, an enquiry was conducted in a predetermined manner. Consequent upon closure of proceedings of enquiry,
a show cause notice dated 4.6.2002 was issued, to which, concerned workman submitted his reply on 16.6.2002.
Unfortunately, without considering the submissions made by the concerned workman and valid evidence on record in
proper perspective, office order dated 12.4.2004 was issued imposing a major penalty of reduction of 2 increments
with cumulative effect. It is submitted that aggrieved by the above arbitrary action of the Respondent , the Petitioner
Union has approached the Respondent to withdraw the impugned office order dated 12.4.2004. Unfortunately, the
office order dated 12.4.2004 was not withdrawn, in those circumstances, having left with no other alternative, the
Petitioner Union initiated conciliation proceedings. However, the said conciliation proceeding ended in failure.
Hence, this reference. It is submitted that, though on receipt of charge sheet the concerned workman has submitted
categorically pleading that, he has not taken any independent and deliberate decision to participate in the alleged
illegal strike, in the 2nd shift on 2.7.2001, the concerned workman also pleaded that, he has nothing to do with the
alleged strike. Unfortunately, without properly considering the submissions made by him, an enquiry was initiated.
During the enquiry, Sri K.Padmanabha Reddy deposed as Presenting Officer and he introduced M/s.K.Lingaiah &
N.Rayamallu as MWI & MW2. The Presenting Officer simply reiterated the charge alleged against the concerned
workman by contending that, the concerned workman participated in the illegal strike, whereas, MWI Sri Lingaiah
merely stated that he has seen the concerned workman standing in front of the scooter shed along with other
Timbermen. He further stated that, he asked all the workmen including the concerned workman to get down into the
mine. But, no one got down into the mine. In so far as the evidence of MW2 Sri N.Rayamallu, Headoverman also
stated that none of the workmen have got down into the mine in 2nd shift on 2.7.2001. It is submitted that, on
conclusion of management evidence, the concerned workman's statement was recorded. During his deposition, the
concerned workman pleaded that on 2.7.2001 in 2nd shift, he marked his IN muster and went to the place of
distribution. However, he observed that all the workmen went to Manager's room and the Manager was holding the
discussions with the representatives of recognized Unions. After some time, the representatives of the recognized
Unions came out from the Manager's room and declared that no one should resume their work on account of the
adamant attitude of Management. At that point of time, he deposed that, the concerned workman was standing near
the scooter shed. The shift Under Manager was asking all the workmen one by one to resume work. In the above
process, on being asked by him, the concerned workman informed that he will get down. Further, the concerned
workman also deposed that, along with Under Manager he also requested some other workmen to get down the mine
and resume the duty. He further stated that, he waited for other workmen at the Lamp Room to resume work.
However, no other workmen approached the Lamp Room. In those circumstances, the concerned workman
approached the Under Manager, but by that time, the Management exhibited Lockout Notice stating that the workmen
not to get down into the mine. In those circumstances, Under Manager informed the concerned workmen that after
displaying the Lockout Notice Board, no workmen can resume their duties. It is submitted that, subsequently,
M/s.B.Shanker, Coal Filler, M.Rama Swamy, Trammer, S.Rayamallu, Coal Filler, M.Madanaiah, Timberman,
deposed as workman witnesses. The evidence of workman witnesses also categorically establishes that the concerned
workman has nothing to do with the alleged strike. In fact, the concerned workman requested the HOM and
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3297
Mukaddam of Timberman to allocate his work, so as to enable him to go down the mine, but, as all other workmen
went away and the concerned workman was not allotted any work and on account of the Lockout Notice Board
displayed by the Management, the concerned workman could not resume his duties. Further, evidence of workmen
witnesses also establishes that the concerned workman has nothing to do with the alleged strike in the 2nd shift on
2.7.2001. Without properly appreciating the evidence on record, Enquiry Officer held that the charge as proved and
basing on such perverse findings, a show cause notice dated 4.6.2002 was issued, to which, the concerned workman
has submitted his reply on 16.6.2002. Without properly appreciating, the impugned office order dt.12-04-2004 was
issued imposing the punishment. It is submitted that, though all other workmen of 2nd shift on 2.7.2001 did not
resume duty due to the call given by the representatives of the recognized Trade Unions, the concerned workman was
made as scapegoat, ignoring the fact that, he has nothing to do with the alleged strike. In fact, the concerned workman
wanted to resume duty, but he could not do so, as no other workmen resumed duty and that he was not entrusted with
any work by his Mukaddam. Further, as can be seen from the proceeding of enquiry, though the concerned workman
requested the Under Manager for resumption of his duties, but he was not permitted to do so, as the Management has
already displayed Lockout Notice. Even otherwise also, there is no justification on the part of the Respondents to
impose the penalty on the concerned workman on pick and choose method, when none of the workmen in the 2nd
shift resumed their duties on the call given by the representatives of the recognized trade unions. When the evidence
on record does not establish the charge alleged, it is unjustifiable on the part of the Respondent s to impose the
penalty. The concerned workman never went to Manager Room and never demanded apology, as charged. In fact,
many shift workmen gave representation pleading that, the concerned workman has nothing to do with the alleged
strike in 2nd shift on 2.7.2001. As a matter of fact, though the concerned workman has submitted reply to show cause
notice, the Disciplinary Authority has not considered any of his submissions and passed cryptic order, in a
predetermined manner. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 12.4.2004 and direct the Respondent
for granting all other consequential benefits etc..
3.
Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner Union as under:
It is submitted that the concerned workman Sri Gaje Shivaji, Timberman, GDK-5 Incline, was imposed with a penalty
of Reduction of two increments earned by him as on date vide order with cumulative effect on proved charge
No.RG./PER/S/46/2280. dated 12.04.2004. It is apparently clear that there is an abnormal delay of above 07 years in
raising the dispute by the Petitioner; therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
It is submitted that the concerned workman Sri Gaje Shivaji, was imposed the penalty of Reduction of two increments
earned by him as on date with cumulative effect vide order No.RG.I/PER/S/46/2280, dated 12.04.2004 on proved
charge after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. In this regard, it is
submitted that concerned workman was issued with a Lr.No.Gdk.5/06-F/2001/23 14, dated 05.07.2001, under
Company's Standing Orders No. 25.3, 25.11, charge sheet Vide 25.24 for the misconduct committed by him, which
read as follows:
25(3): Willful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in conjunction with another or other of any
lawful or reasonable order of a superior.
25(11): Going on illegal Strike either singly or with other workmen without giving 14 days previous notice.
25(24): Sabotage or causing willful damage to work in progress or property of the company.
The concerned workman acknowledged the receipt of the charge sheet, and submitted his explanation dated
05.08.2001 which was examined and found to be not satisfactory. The concerned workman participated in an illegal
strike along with others, even after a notice was displayed on the notice board in Telugu, that the Coal Industry was
declared as Public Utility Service by the Government of India and the strikes have been prohibited. The concerned
workman was pursued by the mine authorities along with other workmen to go down the mine in 2nd Shift on
02.07.2001 but in vain, the illegal strike continued in III shift on 02.07.2001 and also in 1st Shift of 03.07.2001, due
to which production to a tune of 1,633 Tonnes valuing Rs. 15,43,105/- and 1,607 mandays were lost due to strike.
Hence, an enquiry was ordered and an enquiry notice No.GDK.5/06-F/2001/2740, dated 01.08.2001 was issued
advising him to attend the enquiry on 06.08.2001, along with witnesses, if any, to defend his case. It is submitted
that the enquiry was commenced on 06.08.2001 and was held on different dates and finally concluded on 09.01.2002,
adhering to the principles of Natural Justice. The concerned workman attended and fully participated in the enquiry,
and the charge sheeted workman was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case, including availing the services
of a defense assistant in the enquiry. At the outset the enquiry procedure was explained in Telugu by the Enquiry
Officer, and as requested by the charge sheeted workman the enquiry proceedings were recorded in Telugu and a copy
of each page of the proceedings were given to him. The Presenting Officer and the management witnesses deposed
their evidence in the presence of the Concerned workman which was duly recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Further,
the documentary evidence was produced by the management in the presence of the charge sheeted workman to
substantiate the charge leveled against him in the enquiry. The charge sheeted workman did not cross examine the
management witness when the opportunity was afforded to him. The charge sheeted workman deposed among other
3298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
things in the enquiry, that the Union people asked the workmen not to move from the Manager's room until the
Manager comes out and talk and that they squatted in front of the room, and that nobody could go down the mine
after strike notice was displayed, and that he also went away and had nothing to do with the strike. The charge sheeted
workman produced witnesses in his defense, but was not able to rebut the charges leveled against him. The Enquiry
Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry and after appreciating all the recorded evidence, submitted
his report in which the charge sheeted workman was held to be guilty of the charge leveled against him. It is
submitted that on 02.07.2001 the concerned workman booked his IN muster, but did not go to work distribution
point, nor collected his cap lamp from the lamp room. The workman participated in an illegal strike along with others
demanding that the Superintendent of Mines (Manager), Gdk.5 Incline should tender apology in public for arranging
to fell a tree near heavy material unloading ramp in the mine premises. The Manager even after explaining the
reasons for felling the tree, which was hindering the vehicle traffic, loading and unloading and also affecting the
safety of the workmen, the concerned workman participated in an illegal strike along with other workmen. Further,
the concerned workman himself deposed in the enquiry that the Shift Under Manager came to him and asked him to
go down the mine. However, the concerned workman left the mine without working along with others. The company
has lost production to a tune of 1,633 Tonnes, the value of which was Rs. 15,43,105/- and lost 1,607 mandays due to
illegal strike. It is to submit that the Enquiry Officer after appreciating and analyzing each evidence adduced in the
enquiry held that the charges against the workman were duly proved against him under Company's Standing Order
No. 25(3), 25(11), 25(24). It is pertinent to mention here that mere participation in a illegal strike itself is a
misconduct under Company's Standing Order No.25.(11), and the charge sheeted workman himself has deposed in the
enquiry that all the workmen including himself left the mine in II shift of 02.07.2001 thereby admitting that the
workman has participated in the strike. The workman was supplied with all the documents including enquiry
proceedings and enquiry report Vide Show Cause Notice No.RG.I/PER/S/46/3621 dated.04.06.2002. The concerned
workman acknowledged the said notice and submitted his representation dated 16.06.2002. It is submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings, representations submitted by the concerned
workman, and after evaluating all the evidence on record concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, and as the
charges framed and proved in the enquiry were grave and serious in nature warranting punishment with that of
dismissal, the management has taken a lenient view to give an opportunity to the delinquent workman to improve
himself, passed the impugned order No. RG.I/PER/S/46/2280, 12.04.2004 imposing the penalty of Reduction of Two
Increments with cumulative effect. The Manager even after explaining the reasons for felling the tree, which was
hindering the vehicle traffic, loading and unloading and also affecting the safety of the workmen, the concerned
workman participated in an illegal strike along with other workmen. The concerned workman submitted explanation
dated: 05.08.2001, which was found to be not satisfactory. As the illegal strike has caused heavy production and
mandays loss to the Company and an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was held in consonance with the principles of
natural justice, and full opportunity was given to the delinquent workman to defend himself. The concerned workman
was not able to rebut the charges leveled against him, and based on the evidence produced by the management in the
enquiry the charges were proved. The workman received show cause notice along with enquiry proceedings and
enquiry report, and submitted his representation dated 16.06.2002. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the
case from all angles the management have taken a lenient view and imposed the penalty of reduction of two
increments with cumulative effect instead of awarding the extreme penalty, as the charges proved were grave and
serious in nature. As such, the allegations of the Petitioner that without considering the an enquiry was conducted in a
predetermined manner, and without valid evidence a major penalty was imposed is devoid of any truth or substance,
hence denied. It is submitted that the concerned workman categorically stated in his reply to the charge sheet dated
05.08.2001, that in response to the decision taken by the Recognized Union, they have also protested and participated
in the strike. The concerned workman cannot absolve himself of his involvement and participation in the illegal strike,
by simply throwing the blame on the Union or other workmen. The concerned workman was unable to rebut the
charges and prove his innocence in the enquiry. The Presenting Officer Sri K.Padmanabha Reddy, Additional
Manager (MW) produced Form-C Register of the month of July 2001, to establish that the concerned workman
booked his IN muster in IInd shift of 02.07.2001. The unrebutted evidence of Sri K.Lingaiah, Senior Under Manager
(MW.1) and Sri N.Rayamallu, Head Ovrerman (MW.2) clearly established that no workman turned up at the
distribution point, for allocation of work after booking their IN muster in IInd shift on 02.07.2001. It also established
that no workman took Cap lamp at the commencement of the shift on 02.07.2001 deliberately contrary to the normal
practice. Further, as admitted by the concerned workman himself in the enquiry, he left the mine premises along with
other workmen which amounts to participating in the illegal strike. As such, the allegations of the Petitioner that
without considering the submissions of the concerned workman an enquiry was initiated, and MWl and MW2 merely
stated that the concerned workman was seen standing at the scooter shed along with others is not correct, hence
denied. The concerned workman in his deposition stated that the Union people asked the workman not to move from
Manager's room until the manager came out and talk with them, and that they squatted in front of the room and he
was standing near the scooter shed, this clearly established the fact that the concerned workman instead of going to
the distribution point for allocation of work went to the Manager's room along with others. Further, the concerned
workman himself deposed in the enquiry that the Shift Under Manager came to him and asked him to go down the
mine. But he left the mine without working along with others. As such, the allegation of the Petitioner that the
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3299
concerned workman requested other workman to go down the mine, but as the strike notice was exhibited the
workmen did not go down the mine is not maintainable, hence denied. Even if it is assumed for a moment without
conceding that the concerned workman was really interested to resume duty, no one has prevented him from reporting
at the work distribution point in time, before the strike notice was displayed as per the provisions of Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947, which he is fully aware of with his long standing service in the Company. It is submitted that the
concerned workman himself deposed in the enquiry, that on 02.07.2001 in IInd Shift he has booked his IN muster and
went to lavatory, and by the time he returned all the workman were already left to the Manager's room agitating for
the felling of a old tree and demanding apology from the Manager. The fact of which was corroborated with the
statement of MW1, that when he went to distribute no workmen was available at the distribution point. The concerned
workman also deposed that he too went towards the Manager's room and stood at the scooter shed along with other
Timbermen, while some other workmen squatted in front of the room. The concerned workman also deposed that the
Shift Under Manager advised the workmen including him to go down the mine, but that nobody could go down the
mine and the Strike Notice was displayed. This clearly established the fact that no workmen turned up at the
distribution point for allotment of work in time, and left the mine after the strike notice was displayed. Further, during
the cross examination of defense witness Sri M.Madanaih, Timberman (WW-4) in his reply to the question No.6
stated that the request of the concerned workman for distribution took place after the strike notice was displayed. As
such, the allegations of the Petitioner that the evidence of workman witnesses established that the concerned workman
has nothing to do with the strike is devoid of any truth or substance, hence denied. The allegation of the Petitioner that
the concerned workman was not allotted any work as all other workmen went away and strike notice was displayed, is
only a ruse adopted by the concerned workman to safeguard himself from possible management action for
participating in the illegal strike, therefore baseless and misleading, hence denied. The Disciplinary Authority after
careful examination of his representation, and after going through the entire enquiry proceedings and enquiry report
concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, and though the charges proved or grave and serious in nature, the
management has taken a lenient view with an intention to give an opportunity to the delinquent workman to reform
himself, and instead of awarding the extreme penalty has imposed on him the penalty of Reduction of Two
Increments with cumulative effect. The concerned workman cannot disown his participation in the illegal strike, on
the plea that all the other workmen in IInd Shift of 02.07.2001 were also not similarly charge sheeted. Further, the
representation of the 135 shift workmen out of total 303 workmen, including the one who actually was not present on
02.07.2001, merely states that the concerned workman has no connection with the strike, but did not state that the
concerned workman has not participated in the illegal strike. As such, the representation even though not verified for
its genuineness, failed to dispel the charges leveled against the concerned workman. Therefore, after proper analysis
of the case from all angles the Disciplinary Authority has passed the penalty order, with all reasonableness and
justification which cannot be faulted with on any account, allegations of the Petitioner are baseless. Hence, it is
prayed that claim of the Petitioner be dismissed as devoid of merits.
4.
Perused written arguments.
5.
On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for
determination:-
I
Whether the Departmental Enquiry held against the workmen has legal and valid?
II
Whether action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Karimnagar district in
imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order No.RG-
I/PER/S/46/2280 dated 12.04.2004 against the concerned workman Sri Gaje Shivaji, Timber man, GDK-5
Incline is justified and legal ?
III.
To what relief the concerned workman is entitled for?
Findings:-
6.
Point No.I: The Departmental Enquiry held against the Concerned workman has been held legal and valid
vide order dated 28.10.2019.
Thus, Point No.I is decided accordingly.
7.
Point No.II: The workman in his claim statement has assailed the impugned order No. RG-I/PER/S/46/2280
dated 12.04.2004 issued by Respondent through which penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect
was imposed against him and therefore sought the declaration to hold punishment order illegal and to set-side the
same and also prayed to restore the increment deferred pursuant to the impugned order dated 12.04.2004, duly
granting all other consequential benefits.
8.
Workman in his claim statement states that he was issued with charge sheet dated-5.7.2001 alleging that on
2.7.2001 in 2nd shift on he booked has
IN muster and participated in an illegal strike along with others
demanding an apology from S.O.M., GDK-5 Incline, for felling a tree in the mine premises. Further, it is submitted
3300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that on receipt of the above charge sheet the workman submitted his explanation on 5.8.2001 categorically denying
the charges. But, without considering the submissions made by the workman, an enquiry was conducted by the
Respondent management against him in a predetermined manner and consequent upon closure of proceedings of
enquiry, a show cause notice dated 4th June 2002 was issued to him to which he submitted his reply and 16th June
2002. But, without considering the submissions made by the concerned workman and valid evidence on record in
proper perspective, Office order dated 12th April 2004 was issued imposing a major penalty of reduction of 2
increments with cumulative effect. Further, it is submitted that the Workman has not taken any independent and
deliberate decision on the issue of workman to participate in alleged illegal strike. Further, it is submitted that he has
nothing to do with the alleged strike. During the enquiry, Sri Padmanabha Reddy deposed as Presenting Officer and
he also examined, M/s. K. Lingaiah and N Rayamallu as MW1 and MW2. Though witness state that he has seen the
concerned Workman standing in front of the scooter shed along with other Timbermen, but they did state that
workman Petitioner was indulged in strike. Workman states that he himself asked all other Workmen, to get down
into the mine for duty. But no Workman got down into the mine for duty. Workman further states that evidence of
MW 2 Sri N Rayamallu, Headover man stated that, he has seen the concerned workman¸ in conversation with MW1
at the spot. MW2 also states that none of the Workmen have got down into the mine in Second Shift on 2nd July
2001. Workman pleaded that, he waited for other Workmen at the Lamp room to resume work and Workman
approached to the Under manager but by the time the management declared Lockout notice stating that the Workmen
not to get down into the mine. Therefore, Under Manager informed Workmen that after displaying the Lockout
Notice board, no Workman can resume their duties. Further, it is submitted that evidence of Witnesses on behalf of
workmen has categorically establish that the concerned Workman has nothing to do with the alleged strike. In fact,
the concerned Workman requested the HOM and Mukaddam of Timbermen to allocate his work so as to enable him
to go down the mine, but, as all other workmen went away, and the concerned Workman was not allotted any work
on account of the Lockout Notice Board displayed by the management, hence concerned Workman could not resume
his duties. Enquiry officer without appreciation of evidence of workman has held the charge against the workman
proved and basing up on such perverse findings, a show cause notice dated 4th June. 2002 was issued, to which the
concerned Workman has submitted his reply on 16th June 2002. It is pleaded that without properly appreciating
evidence on record the impugned office order dated 12th April 2004, has been issued imposing the penalty of
reduction of 2 increments with cumulative effect which is not a justified order. It is pleaded that none of the workmen
in the second shift resumed their duties on the call given by their representatives of their recognized trade unions.
Even otherwise, also, when the evidence on record does not establish the charge alleged, the order of punishment is
unjustifiable on the part of the Respondent.
9.
On the other hand, Respondent Counsel contended that on 2nd July 2001, the Concerned Workman has
booked his IN muster, but he did not go to the place of work distribution point nor collected his cap lamp from the
lamp room. The Workman participated in an illegal strike, along with others demanding that the Superintendent of
Mines, GDK.5 incline, should tender apology in public for removing of tree near heavy material unloading ramp in
the Mine premises. Although Management has explained the reasons for removing of the tree as it was hindering the
vehicle traffic in the work of loading and unloading and also affecting the safety of the Workmen. Respondent
contended that the concerned Workman participated in the illegal strike dated 2.7.2007 in second shift, along with
other workmen. The Workman himself has deposed in the enquiry that the shift Under Manager came to him and
asked him to go down the mine but, the concerned Workman left the mine without working, along with others. The
Respondent contended that the company has lost production to a tune of 1633 tonnes, the value of which was
Rs.15,43,105/- and lost 1607 mandays due to illegal strike on 2.7.2007 in second shift at Mine. Further, Respondent
contended that the Enquiry Officer after appreciating and analysing each evidence adduced in the enquiry has held the
charges against the Workman were duly proved under Company’s Standing Orders No.25(3), 25(11), 25(24).
Respondent also contended that it is pertinent to mention here that mere participation in an illegal strike itself is a
misconduct under Company’s Standing Orders No.25.(11) and the charge sheeted Workman himself has deposed in
the inquiry that all the workmen including himself left the mine in second shift of 2nd July 2001, thereby admitted that
he has also participated in the strike. Respondent further contended that Workman was supplied with all the
documents including enquiry proceedings and enquiry report along with showcase notice dated 4th June 2002.
Further, it is contended that Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire material in proceedings of enquiry
and also representations submitted by the concerned Workman and has come to the finding to concur with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority was of the opinion that the charges framed and proved
against the workman were of grave and serious in nature, hence warranting punishment with that of dismissal. But
the management has taken a lenient view to give an opportunity to the delinquent Workman to improve his conduct
and has passed the impugned order dated 12th April 2004, imposing the penalty of reduction of 2 increments with
cumulative effect. Further, Respondent contended that the workman in reply to the charge sheet dated 5th August.
2001, has categorically admitted that in response to the decision taken by the recognised Union they have also
protested and participated in the strike. Therefore, concerned Workman cannot absolve himself after his involvement
and participation in the illegal strike, by simply throwing the blame on the union or other workmen. Respondent
contended that the enquiry was held scrupulously following the principles of natural justice and the charges were
proved on the basis of sufficient evidence in the enquiry. Further Respondent contended that during the enquiry the
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3301
Presenting Officer Sri Padmanabha Reddy, Additional Manager has produced Form-C register of the Month of July
2001 to establish the fact that concerned Workman booked his IN muster in second shift of 2nd July 2001 and
unrebutted evidence of Sri Lingaiah, Senior Under Manager and Sri N Rayamallu Head Over Man clearly established
that Workman with other co-workmen did not turn up at the distribution point for allocation of work after booking
their IN muster in Second Shift on 2nd July 2001. It is also established from evidence of Management witness that no
Workman took cap Lamp at the commencement of the shift on 2nd July 2001 deliberately contrary to the normal
practice. Further, the Workman has also admitted in the enquiry that he left the Mine Premises along with other
Workmen and the conduct of workman amounts to participation in the illegal strike.
10.
Perused the record in view of the submissions made by both the Learned Counsels of both the parties. It is
undisputed that on 2nd July 2001, in Second Shift, the workman participated in the strike along with other workmen
though he booked his IN muster. It is also established that the Workman did not join the duty on 2nd July 2001 in
second shift and admittedly, he was present at the site of strike along with other workmen. As per charge sheet, the
workman was charge sheeted under Company’s Standing Order No. 25(3), 25(11), 25(24), which reads as follows:-
25(3): Willful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in conjunction with another or other of any
lawful or reasonable order of a superior.
25(11): Going on illegal Strike either singly or with other workmen without giving 14 days previous notice.
25(24): Sabotage or causing willful damage to work in progress or property of the company.
As per Company’s Standing Orders No 25(11), for going on straight illegal strike 14 days prior notice was
mandatory. It has come on record that no such prior notice of 14 days was given to Management by the union of
workman on 2nd July 2001 in second shift, whereas workman has booked IN muster and participated in the illegal
strike along with other workmen, in second shift on 2nd July 2001, in support of their demand of union to tender
apology from management in public for arranging to fell a tree near heavy material unloading ramp in the premises
of GDK. 5 Incline. Before delving into evidence on record involvement of workman in illegal strike, it would be
apposite to look into the provision contained definitions of the illegal strike under Section 22 of I.D. Act, 1947,
extracted as below:-
22. Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs.
(1)No person employed in a public utility service shall go on strike, in breach of contract-(a)without giving to the
employer notice of strike, as hereinafter provided, within six weeks before striking; or
(b)within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
(c)before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or
(d)during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the
conclusion of such proceedings.
Sec.23 provides General prohibition of strikes and lock-outs, is extracted below:-
- No workman who is employed in any industrial establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and no
employer of any such workman shall declare a lock-out-(a)during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a
Board and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings;
(b)during the pendency of proceedings before [a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] and two
months, after the conclusion of such proceedings;
(bb)[ during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator and two months after the conclusion of
such proceedings, where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of section 10-A; or ]
(c)during any period in which a settlement or award is in operation, in respect of any of the matters covered by
the settlement or award.
11.
Admittedly, the Respondent Company is a public utility service and in view of the circular of the
Government of India, any strike was prohibited in the Respondent Company during the period mentioned therein.
Section 24 of I.D. Act, 1947 defines illegal strike and lockout provision is extracted as below:-
Section 24(1):-
(1)A strike or a lock-out shall be illegal if-
(i) it is commenced or declared in contravention of section 22 or section 23; or
(ii) it is continued in contravention of an order made under sub-section (3) of section 10 [or sub-section (4-A) of
section 10-A]
3302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
In view of provision contained under Sec.22, Sec.23 and Sec.24 of I.D. Act we have to examine whether
workman participated in illegal strike on 2nd July, 2001. The perusal of the evidence on record of enquiry proceedings
goes to reveal that on 2nd July 2001 in the second shift Workman booked his IN muster but he did not join his duty
despite the instruction/ order of the Under Manager and the Mukaddam to the workman to go down in the mine for
duty. Admittedly, there is ample evidence on the record of enquiry proceedings that Workman did not get down in
mine to join duty on that day and he was witnessed by the Management witness while he was standing at the place of
illegal strike along with other Workmen. Further, it has also come in the evidence that Workman did not pick his
cap lamp for duty despite the direction given to him by Mukaddam and Under Manager to him. Such obstinate
conduct of Workman goes to show that he did not proceed to work place to join duty instead went to spot of illegal
strike where other workmen were gathered to demand the apology of Management for removal of tree from
premises. The evidence on record also reflects that the Workman or Union of workman did not give the statutory
notice to Management for strike, strike as required under Company’s Standing Order No.25.11. Thus, the strike by
union on 2.7.2001 in second shift, in which workman also participated was in contravention of the provision of
clause 25.11 of Company’s Standing Orders. It is also established from the evidence S/Shri A. Lingaiah, K.
Padmanabha Reddy and N. Rayamallu, that the Workman did not join duty and was found participating in strike,
along with other workmen. Thus, he failed to discharge his duty without any just cause in the second shift on
2.7.2001 and also on next day on 3rd July 2001 in first Shift.
13.
On the other hand, workman has taken the plea that Enquiry Officer has not appreciated his explanation as
well as the evidence on record. Perusal of record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that the Respondent
Management for proving the charges against the delinquent workman, has examined witness MW1 and MW2, in the
enquiry and these witnesses has given primary evidence in support of charge against the workman, that the
workman did not join duty on 2.7.2001, in second shift and he has participated in illegal strike on that day.
14.
It is settled law that in Departmental Enquiry to prove the charge against delinquent strict rule of evidence do
not applies and only principle of preponderance of Probability applies.
In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Heem Singh, Civil Appeal No.3340/2020, dated 29.10.2001 Hon’ble Apex
Court have held:-
“To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary Enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level
of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the
charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary
findings in a disciplinary Enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so
would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common
sense without which the judges’ craft is in vain.”
Further, in case of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 SCC 491, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“4. It is well settled that in a domestic Enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is
no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.” Further, it is held, “The simple
point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular
court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed
in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any
evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law
apparent on the record.”
Thus, in view of law laid down by the apex court as discussed above, as regards appreciation of evidence recorded in
Departmental Enquiry this court can not reappreciate evidence recorded in disciplinary enquiry. This court is only
permitted to satisfy its conscience that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard the
court against perversity. The perusal of the record reveals that there is ample evidence on record to a logical
probative conclusion for a prudent mind to prove the charge against the workman in the present matter. Thus, on the
basis of evidence on record it is established that workman had participated in illegal strike on 2nd July, 2001, second
shift with other workmen. Therefore, the plea of the workman that there is no sufficient evidence in the enquiry to
support the charge against him of participation in the illegal strike is untenable.
As far as the question of proving the factum of illegal strike is concerned, in this context, the reference of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Workmen of the Motor Industries Co. Ltd., vs. Management of
Motor Industries Co., 1969 AIR page 1280, is relevant wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held:-
“Could the management then take disciplinary action against the concerned workmen in respect of such a strike ?
Standing order 22 enumerates various acts constituting misconduct. Cls. 2, 3, 13 and 18 provide that striking either
singly or in combination with others in contravention of the provisions of any Act, inciting any other workmen to
strike in contravention of any law, riotous or disorderly behaviour or any act subversive of discipline and' loitering
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3303
within the company's premises while on duty or absence without permission from the appointed place of work
constitute misconduct. The point is whether participation in and incitement to join the said strike were in respect of a
strike which was in contravention of any Act or law. Section 23 provides that no workman employed in an industrial
establishment shall go on strike in breach of contract and during the period in which a settlement is in operation, in
respect of any of the matters covered by such a settlement. The prohibition against a workman going on strike thus
envisages two conditions; (a) that it is in breach of a contract and (b) that it is during the period in which a settlement
is in operation and is in respect of any of the matters covered by such settlement. The said settlement was a contract
between the company and the association representing the workmen -and it was in operation on May 11, 1966. But
was it in respect of a matter covered by the settlement ? Under s. 24 a strike is illegal if it is commenced in
contravention of s. 23. Section 26 inter alia provides that any workman who commences, continues or otherwise acts
in furtherance of a strike which is illegal under the Act shall be punished with imprisonment for a term extending to
one month or with fine which may extend to Rs. 50 or with both. Section 27 provides punishment of a person who
instigates or incites- others to take part in or otherwise acts in furtherance of an illegal strike, The strike envisaged by
these two sections is clearly the one which is illegal under s. 24 read with s. 23. A strike in breach of a contract during
the operation of a settlement and in respect of a matter covered by that settlement falls under s. 23 (c).”
Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case as discussed above, the alleged illegal strike in
which workman had participated has been found guilty was called and stayed not only during the enforcement of
settlement as mentioned under Sec.23(C) of I.D. Act but also in breach of contract mentioned under Sec.22 of I.D.
Act. Therefore, workman in the present matter has been rightly held guilty for charge of participation in illegal
strike on 2.7.2001.
15.
Now let us examine whether the illegal strike by workman on 2nd July 2001, in the second shift which was
found in contravention of clause 25.11 of the Company’s Standing Orders and in which Workman had also
participated, was justified.
16.
It has come in the evidence on record that on that day the union of the Workman engaged in the Respondent
Company had proceeded on strike on working day to seek an apology from the Management for cutting/ removing
down the tree in the Company’s premises. Admittedly no notice of strike was given by the union to the Management
as per provision under Clause 25.11 of Standing Orders. Whereas workman herein also participated in the strike and
he did not join his duty on that day. Workman did not collect his cap lamp from the lamp room for going down in
the mine for work. Thus, Workman had also participated in the illegal strike. However, there is no whisper in the
evidence that the workman was forced to join the strike by the other members of the union on that day or he was
compelled to join the strike by other workmen. Instead, he himself abandoned the place of duty to join them and
participated in the illegal strike as organized in the premises of the Respondent Company on 2.7.2001. Although
Respondent Management had tried to convince the workman that the tree was causing hindrance in the work of the
loading and unloading of the coal on the vehicles in the premises and therefore management has taken the decision
to remove the said tree from the premises. It is also noticed from the record that before calling for the strike on 2nd
July 2001 in the second shift the union of the Workman, never gave any memorandum or notice as per Company’s
Standing Orders to the management for meet out their demand and no resolution of union was pending with the
management in this regard on that day. The union of Workman abruptly stopped the work on 2nd July, 2001 in the
second shift to raise their demand as mentioned in charge sheet and stopped the work in the Respondent Company
and gathered in front of the office of Manager to raise their demand for seeking the apology from the management in
the matter of removal of tree. Thus, keeping in view the demand raised by the workman was not of such urgent
nature for which the workman could not have waited for notice period or required immediate attention without
waiting for notice period. Under these circumstances, in the case at hand, the demand of workman was not of such
imminent nature so as to stop the work abruptly in the Respondent Company and called organizing strike. Hence,
such strike can not be termed as justified. It is not such a case that workmen could not have waited for
the notice period of 14 days for meeting their demand from the Respondent Management.
Therefore, under these circumstances, the strike by workers Union in which workman has also participated cannot be
said to be justified in any circumstance. Therefore the strike on 2nd July 2001 in second shift in which workman has
participated was not only illegal but without any justification.
17.
As far as the question of disproportionate punishment of reduction of 2 increments with cumulative effect to
the workman is concerned, workman has taken the plea that the Disciplinary Authority has not considered his
submission, submitted in reply to show cause notice. Whereas Respondent has contended that the Disciplinary
Authority, after careful examination of representation of workman and after going through the entire proceeding of
enquiry, considered the finding of the Enquiry Officer and has passed the order of punishment to Workman imposing
reduction of 2 increments with cumulative effect. Further, Respondent contended that all the three charges have been
proved during enquiry against the workman and nature of the charges are serious and grave. The management has
taken a lenient view with an intention to give an opportunity to the delinquent Workman to reform himself and
3304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
instead of awarding major punishment, Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of reduction of 2 increments
with cumulative effect.
18.
Perused the impugned order dated 12th April 2004 which reflects that the Disciplinary Authority has
considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and all connected papers as well as the representation dated 16th June
2002 of the Workman and in facts and circumstances of the matter, has taken lenient view and decided to impose the
penalty of reduction of 2 increments with cumulative effect to the workman. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity
in the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment upon the workman vide order dated 12th April 2004.
Further, as regards question of Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere in the punishment order passed by
Disciplinary Authority is concerned in this context, a reference of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of UP Vs. Sheo Shankar Lal(2006) 3 SCC 276 is relevant, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India have held:-
“the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed
upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in
exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of
proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that the High Court shall be very
slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience."
Further, in the case of State of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya in Civil Appeal No.5861/2007 dated
1.3.2001 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-
“6. 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.
Thus, on going through the evidence on record of Departmental Enquiry it is established that on 2nd July 2001 in
second shift the strike was called upon by the union to meet out their demand of seeking apology from the
Management for cutting down tree situated in the premises of Company and Workman herein also participated in that
illegal strike. It is also established that the workman did not join the duty on 2nd July 2001, in 2nd shift despite the
order given by his superiors. Therefore, the charges against the Workman as per charge sheet dated 5.7.2001 under
Company’s Standing Orders No.25(3), 25(11) & 25(24) held proved. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion,
the action of the management is held justified.
Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.
19.
Point No.III:-
In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as discussed above, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. His claim statement is liable to be
dismissed.
Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion and findings arrived at Points No.I, II and III, the action of the
management of S.C.C.L., RG-I Area Godavarikhani in imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with
cumulative effect vide Order No.RG-I/PER/S/46/2280 dt.12.4.2004 against Sri Gaje Shivaji, Timber man, GDK-5
Incline is held justified and legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Reference is answered
accordingly.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 9th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3305
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 25 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1479.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn
esa
–सह–
] हैिराबाि ds iapkV (पहचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मणिकंिन.एन, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 25th July, 2024
S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No.82/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/07/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: -
Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 21st day of May, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 82/2008
Between:
Ramagiri China Posham, S/o Peda Ellaiah (died) per LRs
…Petitioner
1.
Ramagiri Kamala, W/o Late Ramagiri China Posham
2.
Ramagiri Naveeen Kumar, S/o Late Ramagiri China Posham
3.
Ramagiri Rajitha, D/o Late Ramagiri China Posham
4.
Ramagiri Rakesh, S/o Late Ramagiri China Posham
5.
Ramagiri Raghupathi, S/o Late Ramagiri China Posham
All are R/o H.No.3-28, Rapally, Adilabad – 504207.
…. Petitioners
AND
1.
The General Manager,
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
3306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Adilabad district.
2.
The Dy. General Manager,
MK-4 Incline,
Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri, Adilabad District.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
Sri Ramagiri China Posham(died) who worked as Coal Filler (who will be referred to as the workman) has
filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents seeking for declaring
the proceeding No.MMR /PER/ D/072/6752 dated 27.12.2007 issued by 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to
set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the
consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other
reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler in 1997 and due to his sincere and hardworking he was
confirmed as Coal Filler in 1990. From the date of appointment Petitioner was regular to his duties till the year 2005.
But during the year 2006 Petitioner suffered ill-health and other family problems. While the matters stood thus,
charge sheet dated 23.3.2007 was issued alleging that Petitioner was not regular to his duties during the year 2006, as
such, it amounts to misconduct under company's standing order No.25.25. It is submitted that an enquiry was
conducted and during the enquiry, Petitioner was not given any opportunity, much less valid in nature. Basing on
such lop sided enquiry, Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved. It is submitted that basing on the erroneous
findings of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dated 1.7.2007 was issued. On receipt of the show cause notice,
Petitioner has submitted representation dated 28.10.2007 pleading that, due to his ill-health and other family problems
he could not be regular to his duties during the year 2006. However, without considering the merits of submissions
made by the Petitioner, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 5.1.2008 vide order dated 27.12.2007. It is submitted
that, during the course of enquiry, Petitioner categorically pleaded that his inability to perform the duties regularly
during 2006, was only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, but not otherwise. Further, Petitioner
also pleaded that he will attend for duty regularly in future. It is submitted that the action of the Respondents in
dismissing the Petitioner from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice. The whole
enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a predetermined intention to somehow or the other,
put the Petitioner to extreme hardship of dismissal from service. The 1st Respondent failed to apply his mind
independently while issuing the impugned office order of dismissal dated 27-12-2007, as he did not delve into the
alleged misconduct and the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon the Petitioner. Before commencement' of
enquiry, the procedure of enquiry was not explained to the .Petitioner and he was not offered the assistance of any
defense assistance. As the Petitioner was not aware of procedure of enquiry, he could not participate the enquiry
effectively, resulting in issuance of impugned order of removal. Had the procedure of enquiry was explained, he
could have insisted the Enquiry Officer to mark the documents on his behalf i.e., the prescriptions and other
documents to establish the factum of his continued ill-health. Though, the Petitioner has shown all the prescriptions
and other records pertains to his continued ill-health, none of them were marked by the Enquiry Officer and at the end
of enquiry, submissions of the Petitioner were ignored on the pretext that Petitioner could not substantiate his claim
with relevant proofs. As a result of the above improper conduct of enquiry, Petitioner is put to great prejudice, which
resulted in issuance of impugned order of dismissal. Before issuing the impugned order of dismissal, approval of
competent authority was not obtained, as per the standing orders. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to
produce witnesses on his behalf. Had any opportunity was given to the Petitioner to produce witnesses on his behalf,
thereby the necessity to issue the impugned order of dismissal could have been avoided. Enquiry Officer grossly erred
in holding the charges as proved, ignoring the submissions of the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary
Authority proceeded with a preconceived notion. Neither the proceedings of enquiry were conducted in the language
known to the Petitioner, nor the same was explained in the language known to the Petitioner. Having drafted the
proceedings, the thumb impressions of the Petitioner were obtained. The conduct of the Enquiry Officer shows his
predetermined nature. It is submitted that as per the instructions issued by the 1st Respondent company, the
proceedings of enquiry are to be conducted in the language known to the delinquent employee. The Enquiry Officer
relied upon the evidence of irrelevant witnesses who have no personal knowledge of the charge alleged against the
Petitioner. Though, Enquiry Officer relied upon several documents to substantiate the charges, none of those
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3307
documents were either shown or furnished to the Petitioner either before or during the course of enquiry. Even
otherwise also, even the considered documents, do not establish the charge alleged against the Petitioner. Neither the
Enquiry Officer, nor the Disciplinary Authority considered the submissions made by the Petitioner before issuing the
impugned order of dismissal. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are not only contrary to the evidence on record, but
also self-contradictory. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority are outside the scope of charge sheet. As such, the
impugned order of dismissal dated27.12.2007 is liable to be treated as bad in law. The submissions of the Petitioner
during the enquiry remained unrebutted. It is an established principle of law that, unrebutted evidence need not be
proved specifically and the same is deemed to have been accepted. Therefore, impugned order of dismissal dated 27-
12-2007 is 1liable to be treated as bad in law. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is the sole breadwinner in his
family, consisting of wife and four school going children. As a result of Petitioner's dismissal from service, his whole
family rendered without any livelihood. It is prayed to modify the punishment of dismissal to that of any other lesser
penalty, so as to survive himself and to look after his family. Petitioner assures this Court that, he would be regular to
his direct the Respondents to take him back into service. It is therefore prayed to declare the impugned, order No.
MMR/PERD/072/6752 dated 27.12.2007 issued by the 1st Respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same,
consequently direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner into service duly granting all other consequential
benefits, such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.
3.
The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments in brief
which runs as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner was dismissed from service on proved charges of absenteeism after conducting a
detailed domestic enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the Petitioner was
initially appointed in the Respondent's Company on 09.04.1987 as Floating Badli filler and was later regularized as
Coal filler from 01.09.1995. The Petitioner was working at MK.4 Incline of Mandamarri Area. The Petitioner had put
in only 004 musters and remained absent on 334 days during the year 2006 which constituted misconduct under
Company's approved Standing Orders No,25,25 which reads as under:
"25.25: Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause. "
It is submitted that a charge sheet No.MMR/MK4/R/008/Absen/2007/093, dated 23.03.2007 was issued to the
Petitioner for his habitual absenteeism during the year 2006. The Petitioner though acknowledged receipt of the
charge sheet did not submit his written explanation. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of his contention that he was
not given any opportunity much less valid in nature. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry proceedings following all
the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was extended the opportunity of having the services of defense
assistant but he did not accept the same. He was also allowed the opportunity to cross examine the Management
Witness but the Petitioner did not choose to cross examine them for the reasons best known to him. At the
commencement of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had explained the enquiry procedure to the Petitioner in Telugu
and he having satisfied himself affixed his thumb impression on the proceedings without raising any objections and
lodging any protest. Further, the Enquiry Officer commenced the enquiry proceedings only after the Petitioner had
given his consent to participate in the enquiry and also only after he had expressed no objection or the conduct of
enquiry proceedings in English. Further at every stage of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had explained the recorded
proceedings in Telugu to the-Petitioner and he after having satisfied himself that the same were recorded correctly,
affixed his thumb impression. The Enquiry Officer after taking into consideration the depositions of Management
witnesses and Petitioner and also the documentary evidence adduced before him at the time of enquiry, held the
Petitioner guilty of the charge leveled under Standing Orders No.25.25. The Petitioner in his deposition categorically
admitted that he remained absent from duties on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet and admitted the same as his
mistake and that he did not obtain prior sanction of any leave or sick and that he got no medical treatment slips. After
receipt of the enquiry report, the Petitioner was supplied copy of enquiry proceedings and report vide letter
No.MMR/PER/D/072/3510, dated 01.07.2007 to enable him to make his written representation against the findings of
the Enquiry Officer within seven days of receipt of the same. The Petitioner submitted his representation dated
28.10.2007 but he did not dispute the conduct of enquiry proceedings and also the report of the Enquiry Officer. He
only pleaded that as his health was not cooperating to undertake hard works like filling, his family members took him
to holy places and assured to strive hard to prove his sincerity towards his duties. The Petitioner was counselled on
30.10.2007 and was given one month time from 01.11.2007 vide letter No.MMR/PER/D/072/5679 dated 01.11.2007
to enable him improve his filling attendance and performance, but the Petitioner in spite of giving opportunity failed
to improve his attendance and performance. It is submitted that the Petitioner was an underground employee and he
was expected to put in 190 musters per calendar year but over a period of 7 successive calendar years including the
year in which he was dismissed, the Petitioner did not put in 190 musters in any one of the calendar years. He had put
in 113, 100, 102, 008, 004, 007 and 012 musters during the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007
respectively. His average attendance is 50 musters per year. In his representation dated 28.10.2007 the Petitioner
stated that he was appointed as Badli filler in 1986 and performed his duties with utmost sincerity and hence he was
promoted as Coal filler, but from few years his health was not cooperating to hold hard works like filling and in order
3308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to get normalcy in his health his family members took him to various hospitals and village doctors as well as to holy
places. He did not mention that his absence to duties was due to his family problems as claimed in the present
petition. The Petitioner without producing a valid documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged ill health,
Petitioner cannot claim that the merits of his submissions were not considered. Further, if the contentions of the
Petitioner that due to ill health he was not regular to duties are considered to be correct for a while, without admitting
the same as correct., there is no need for him to go for private treatment. The Respondent Company has been
operating Dispensaries, Area Hospitals and Main Hospital with Specialist Doctors and modern equipment for
extending treatment to its employees and their family members. It also refers the patients to Super specialty hospitals
basing on the necessity for better treatment and the Petitioner; if he was really suffering from ill health should have
undergone treatment in Colliery Hospitals and should have reported sick in Colliery Hospitals, which he did not do.
Despite giving opportunity the Petitioner failed to realize his mistake and correct himself by being regular to duties.
His attendance for 7 consecutive years is very poor. Thus, the Petitioner by his own conduct invited the penalty of
dismissal and accordingly he was dismissed on 05.01.2008 vide letter No.MMR/PER/D/072/6752, dated 27.12.2007.
Thus, the contentions of the Petitioner that during the enquiry, the Petitioner was not given any opportunity, basing on
lop sided enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held the charges as proved and that basing on erroneous findings of the
Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued and that without considering the merits of his submissions, he was
dismissed, are all incorrect and bear not even a grain of truth. It is to submit that the Petitioner if really was suffering
from ill health should have reported sick in colliery hospital instead of remaining absent from duties, should have
communicated his inability to attend to duties to the head of the unit and should have obtained sanction of leave
standing to his credit or loss of pay leave. Without submitting substantiating evidence, the Petitioner's contention that
due to ill health and other family problems, he was not regular to duties, merits no consideration. It is to reiterate that
the Petitioner did not establish his ill health and family problems that hindered the Petitioner from being regular to his
duties. It is true that the Petitioner assured to be regular to duties, but he failed to keep up his promise as he had put in
012 musters only during the year 2007. The contention of the Petitioner that the dismissal order dated 27.12.2007
passed by 1st Respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice is totally incorrect,
for the reason that enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer following all the principles of natural justice and the
Petitioner had fully participated in the enquiry proceedings and he on his own admitted his mistake and pleaded guilty
of the charge leveled. Further, he was counseled to improve his attendance and was given one month time from 1st
November, 2007 vide letter No.MMR/PER/D/072/5679, dated 01.11.2007 but the Petitioner failed to improve his
attendance and performance as assured by him. Further his attendance from 2001 to 2007 is very poor. Despite giving
sufficient opportunities, the Petitioner did not realize his mistake and corrected himself by being regular to his duties.
Hence, the Respondents were compelled to impose the penalty of dismissal, which is the consequence of conduct of
the Petitioner none else. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that whole enquiry was conducted in
routine and mechanical manner with a predetermined intention to somehow or other put the Petitioner to extreme
hardship of dismissal from service, is denied. It is submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted by giving full
and fair opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case during the course of enquiry. That the Petitioner’s contention
that the 1st Respondent failed to apply his mind independently while issuing the impugned office order of dismissal
dated 27.12.2007 as he did not delve into the alleged misconduct and the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon
the Petitioner is totally incorrect and far from truth. The 1st Respondent had gone into the enquiry proceedings and
also the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that the proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer
following all the principles of natural justice and the Petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings fully and
admitted his mistake. It is also noticed that the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence on record. In
addition to this the Respondent No. 1 had also gone into the past record of the employee and noticed that his
attendance from 2001 to 2007 was very poor as his average attendance is 50 musters per year. It is submitted that
Respondent No.1 being the Chief General Manager of the Area is empowered to impose penalty including dismissal
on proved charges against National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) employees' upto Grade-C. Since the Petitioner
was NCWA employee and was Coal filler, the Respondent No.1 is competent to issue any penalty including dismissal
from service. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer had given every opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case,
by having the services of defense assistant, producing documentary evidence, cross examining management
witnesses, but it was the Petitioner who did not avail any of the opportunities. The Petitioner being an employee of
the Respondent company has to comply the rules and regulations of the Respondent company. He should have
reported sick in Colliery Hospital which he did not do. He should have communicated about his inability to attend
duties because of the alleged ill health to the unit authorities, which also he did not do. He should have got sanctioned
leave standing to his credit or got sanctioned loss of pay leave by the competent authority, which also he did not
comply and yet claims that his submissions are not considered by the Respondents and not passed reasoned order. In
the cross examination he categorically stated that he got no medical reports, treatment record to submit in support of
his claim. The witnesses who deposed evidence on behalf of Respondent Company, were Pit Office Assistant and
Pay sheet Clerk who deal with the attendance, leaves, pay bills, increments, promotions, disciplinary matters etc.,
relating to the work persons of the Mine which include the Petitioner. The witnesses produced the relevant records
which reveal the fact that the Petitioner was habitually absent on different dates covered in the charge sheet and the
Petitioner verified the Attendance Registers, Paid Pay sheets from January to December, 2006 and Leave Register for
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3309
the year 2006 and admitted that the entries therein are correct. The Petitioner neither disputed the enquiry
proceedings, nor objected for the presentation of the Pit Office Assistant and Pay sheet Clerk during the course of
enquiry before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of Respondent and did not cross examine the witnesses of Respondent.
Therefore, his claim that the impugned dismissal order dated 27.12.2007 is liable to be treated as bad in law is
untenable. The Petitioner without following any of the procedures of the Respondent company cannot claim that his
continuous sickness should not be termed as serious misconduct. The works in inter-dependant and unauthorized
absenteeism by any of the work persons shall dislocate the planned works. Thus, the Respondent company shall
consider the unauthorized absenteeism of any employee as misconduct under the clauses of the approved standing
orders of the Company and after following due procedure impose penalty. While imposing penalty it shall also take
into account the past record of the concerned. In the present case the attendance of the petition is very poor for 7
years. If the Petitioner is the sole bread winner, he should have realized his responsibilities towards his family
members and also as an employee in Respondent Company and should have attended to duties regularly, at least
when he was counseled. He failed to correct himself even though opportunities were given to him. This indicates
the interest the Petitioner had in his employment. It is submitted that the Respondent's Company employs more than
68,227 persons, which includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The production results will depend upon the
over all attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable. In this
regard, if any one remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets
effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill up, and there will be
no proper planning and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That is the reason why
the Respondent's Company is compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees. In the instant case,
the Petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee and he had put in only 007 musters during the year 2006. He was
dismissed after conducting a fair enquiry, giving full opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case and providing
him an opportunity of 01 month time to improve his attendance. The Petitioner failed to rectify his mistake. As such,
the Respondent's Company was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner for unauthorized habitual absenteeism with
effect from 05.01.2008 vide dismissal order No.MMR/PER/D/072/6752, dated 27.12.2007. Hence, it is prayed to
dismiss the petition of the Petitioner.
4
On the basis of the pleadings of both parties and arguments advanced, the following points emerge for
determination:-
I.
Whether the Departmental Enquiry held against the workman is legal and valid?
II.
Whether the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the service of the workman Sri Ramagiri
China Posham, Ex.Coal Filler vide proceedings No.MMR/PER/D/072/6752, dated 27.12.2007 is legal and
justified?
III.
To what relief is the Petitioner entitled?
Findings:-
5.
Point No.I:- Admittedly, Petitioner has worked as coal filler in the Company of Respondent Management.
Petitioner has taken the plea that during the year 2006 he suffered ill-health and other family problems and he could
not attend duty regularly during 2006. The charge sheet dated 23.3.2007 was issued to him alleging that he was not
regular to his duties during the year 2006, as such it amounts to misconduct under the Company’s Standing Orders
No.25.25. Consequently an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry Petitioner was not given any opportunity
much less valid in nature and basing on such lopsided enquiry, Enquiry Officer held the charge as proved. Further,
Petitioner claims that besides basing on erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer the show cause notice dated
1.7.2007 was issued. On receipt of the show cause notice Petitioner submitted his representation dated 28.10.2007
taking the plea that due to his ill-health and other family problems he could not be regular to his duty in the year
2006. Further, without considering the merits of his submissions, Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f.
5.1.2008 vide order dated 27.12.2007. Further, Petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceeding on the ground that
the whole enquiry was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner and before commencing enquiry procedure
was not explained to him and he was not offered the assistance of any defence assistant. As the Petitioner was not
aware of the procedure of the enquiry he could not participate effectively, resulting in issuance of impugned order
of removal. Further, Petitioner claims that he has shown all the prescriptions and other documents to establish the
factum of his continued ill-health. But none of them were marked by the Enquiry Officer and at the end of enquiry
submissions of the Petitioner were ignored on the pretext that Petitioner could not substantiate his claim with relevant
proofs. Further, Petitioner has taken the plea that before issuing the impugned order of dismissal, approval of
competent authority was not obtained, as per the Standing Orders. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to
produce witnesses on his behalf. Further, Petitioner has taken the plea that neither findings of the Enquiry Officer,
nor the impugned order does give any reason, much less valid in nature. Enquiry Officer has grossly erred the
submission of the Petitioner. Petitioner has also taken the plea that neither the proceeding of the enquiry was
recorded in the language known to the Petitioner nor was explained to him in the language known to him. The thumb
3310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
impression of the Petitioner was obtained. The conduct of the Enquiry Officer shows his pre-determined nature.
Further, the Petitioner has taken the plea that Enquiry Officer has relied upon the irrelevant witnesses who have no
personal knowledge of the charge alleged against the Petitioner. It is also pleaded on behalf of the Petitioner , that
findings of the Enquiry Officer are not only contrary to the evidence on record, but also self contradictory and
outside the scope of charge sheet.
6.
On the other hand, Respondent in his counter has denied the allegations made in the claim statement.
Respondent contended that the Enquiry Officer before commencing enquiry proceeding had explained in Telugu
language, the enquiry proceeding, and the Enquiry Officer has commenced the enquiry proceeding only after the
Petitioner had given his consent to participate in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer at every stage of the enquiry had
explained the recorded proceedings in Telugu to the Petitioner and at no stage the Petitioner raised any objection on
the conduct of enquiry proceeding or registered any protest. Further, Respondent contended that Petitioner having
satisfied himself affixed his thumb impression on the proceeding. The Enquiry Officer at the commencement of
the enquiry proceedings, had given the option of availing the services of defense assistant, but the Petitioner did not
avail the opportunity extended to him. Further, the allegation of the Petitioner that though he had shown all the
prescriptions and other records pertaining to his ill health none of them were marked by the Enquiry Officer is totally
incorrect. The enquiry was conducted duly following all the principles of natural justice and the Petitioner was given
every opportunity to defend his case during the course of enquiry. Thus the contention of the Petitioner that as a
result of improper conduct of the enquiry the Petitioner is put to great prejudice, which resulted in issuance of
dismissal order, is incorrect. Further Respondent contended that the Enquiry Officer has given fair opportunity to
prove his case by having the service of the defence assistance, cross examination of the Management witness, but it
was the Petitioner who did not avail any of the opportunities. Petitioner when asked to by Enquiry Officer as to
whether he would like to add anything more to what he had already stated and submit any documents, he did not
respond positively. Further, Respondent contended that the Petitioner on his own admitted his misconduct. The
Enquiry Officer has explained all these reasons in his report before coming to a conclusion that he Petitioner was
guilty of the charge levelled.
7.
In the context of examining the illegality and validity of the Departmental Enquiry Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has laid down following guidelines in Sur Enamel and Stamping Work Limited vs The Workman A.I.R.
1963 P. 1914, wherein apex court held:-
1)
The employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him.
2)
The witnesses are examined – ordinarily in the presence of the employee – in respect of the charges.
3)
The employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
4)
He is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on
any relevant matter.
And
5)
The Enquiry Officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.
Therefore, in the light of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above, I proceed to
examine the proceeding of Departmental Enquiry held against the Petitioner. The proceeding of Departmental
Enquiry would reveal that, during the enquiry in reply to the question asked by Enquiry Officer, the workman states,
“Yes, I have received the charge sheet and understood the charges levelled against me.” Further, Enquiry Officer
asked him, “Did you accept the charge?”, in reply, workman states, “Yes. I accept the charges levelled against me.”
Further, Enquiry Officer asked the workman, whether he wish to avail the assistance of any of his co-workers or
trade union representative in the enquiry. But the workman replied to that, that he do not want to take any assistance
of co-worker or trade union representative. Further, he was asked for that, whether he know the procedure of
enquiry, then he replied that Enquiry Officer has explained the procedure in Telugu and he understood the same.
Further, he was asked whether he was ready to participate in the enquiry, he replied that he was ready to participate
in the enquiry. Further, Enquiry Officer asked the charge sheeted employee, whether he has submitted his
explanation to the charge sheet, then, charge sheeted employee replied that he has not submitted any explanation to
the charge sheet. However, workman admitted the charges mentioned in charge sheet. Further, charge sheeted
employee states that “I don’t have any inconvenience or express any objection if the enquiry proceedings are
conducted and recorded in English language.” Thus, from the above statements of the Petitioner during the enquiry
goes to show that the charge sheet was served upon him and he understood the charge sheet levelled against him.
He was offered the assistance of co-worker but he denied. He refused to take any assistance. Further, he was
explained the procedure of enquiry in Telugu language and after obtaining the consent of the workman Enquiry
Officer has conducted the enquiry. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner that procedure of enquiry was not explained
to him is untenable.
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3311
8.
Further, the record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that the Management has examined two witnesses in
support of charge levelled against the workman. During enquiry, Sri M. Srinivas, POA & Presenting Officer and Sri
B. Chandra Sekhar, Paysheet Clerk and MW1, were examined in the presence of charge sheeted employee and
charge sheeted employee was afforded opportunity to cross examine these witnesses but the workman refused to cross
examine. Further, the Petitioner was also provided the opportunity to produce evidence in defence and workman Sri
R. China Posham has examined himself as witness. Enquiry Officer also asked him whether he would like to add
anything more or want to submit any document but the charge sheeted employee replied in negative and thereafter
enquiry proceeding was concluded. Thus, the Enquiry Officer has accorded fair opportunity of hearing to the charge
sheeted employee during the enquiry proceeding and on the basis of the evidence recorded and produced Enquiry
Officer has submitted his reasoned report/finding that the charge has been proved against the charge sheeted
employee on the basis of evidence. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the
enquiry with pre-conceived notation or has found him guilty on the irrelevant evidence is untenable. Thus, in view
of the fore gone discussion, I am of the considered view that Departmental Enquiry has been conducted against the
workman following the principles of natural justice, the Departmental Enquiry herein is held legal and valid.
Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.
9.
Point No.II: Admittedly, Petitioner who was working as a coal filler in the Company of Respondent
Management remained absent during the year 2006. Petitioner has taken the plea that due to ill-health and other
family problems he could not attend the duty regularly and without considering the merit of the submission made by
the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority has dismissed him from the service w.e.f 5.1.2008
vide office order dated 27.12.2007.
10.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that workman during the enquiry in his deposition
categorically has admitted that he remained absent from duties on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet and
admitted the same as his first mistake that he did not obtain prior sanction of any leave or sick leave. Petitioner also
admitted that he got no medical treatment slips. Further, Respondent contended that Petitioner did not produce any
valid documentary evidence to substantiate his alleged ill-health. Without producing any evidence, the Petitioner
claims that he was ill, is untenable. Further, Respondent contended that Petitioner being an employee of
Respondent Company has to comply the rules and regulations of the Respondent Company. He should have reported
sick in the Colliery Hospital which he did not do. He should have communicated about his inability to attend duties
because of his alleged ill-health to the Respondent authorities. He should have got sanctioned leave, standing to his
credit or got sanctioned loss of pay leave by the competent authority which also he did not comply. The plea of the
Petitioner that his submissions were not considered by the Respondent and Disciplinary has not passed reasoned order
etc., are not acceptable for want of cogent and reliable evidence. Further, Respondent contended that the Petitioner
without producing any documentary evidence in support of his alleged ill-health and without reporting sick in
Company’s hospital, without sanctioned leave or sanctioned loss of pay leave, can not claim that his submissions
were not considered. The documentary evidence i.e., Attendance Register and Pay sheet of the Petitioner produced
by the Management witness clearly establish that Petitioner remained absent from his duties on the dates mentioned
in the charge sheet and the Petitioner on his own admitted his misconduct and pleaded guilty of the charge levelled.
The plea of the Petitioner that his submissions were ignored is untenable. Further, Respondent has contended that
during the enquiry on behalf of the Respondent Company, the Office Assistant and Pay sheet Clerk, who deals with
the attendance, leaves, pay bills, increments, promotions, disciplinary matters relating to work, working persons of the
mines has been examined and witness has produced the relevant record of the fact that Petitioner was habitual
absentee on different dates covered in the charge sheet. Witness has verified the attendance register, paysheets from
January, 2006 to December, 2006 and admitted that the entries therein are correct. Petitioner neither disputed the
enquiry proceeding nor objected to the presentation of the POA before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of Respondent.
The Petitioner did not cross examine the Management witness when opportunity was extended to him. Thus, the oral
and documentary evidence produced by the Management witness in support of the charges levelled against the
Petitioner remains unrebutted. Further Respondent contended that findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the
recorded evidence produced before him and Petitioner has also accepted them as correct and also admitted his
mistake. He on his own admitted inability to submit recorded evidence to substantiate his plea. Thus, it was
satisfactorily established that enquiry proceeding conducted by the Enquiry Officer following all the principles of
natural justice and the Petitioner had fully participated in the enquiry and he was given every opportunity to conduct
his defence. The Petitioner as an under ground employee should put in 190 musters in a year. The Petitioner had
never accomplished it in any one of the calendar years from 2001 to 2007. The Respondent further contended that his
attendance not only during the year 2006 but also in the previous five calendar years is very poor as he had put in
113, 100, 102, 008, 004 and 012 musters during eh year 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007. Therefore, his
average musters was 45 per year. However, he was given opportunity of one month observation but he failed to avail
this opportunity also. Thus, Petitioner by his own conduct invited the penalty of dismissal for which he only has to
shoulder the entire responsibility instead of trying to blame the Respondents on flimsy reasons.
3312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
In view of the submissions made by both parties, perused the record of enquiry proceeding and also enquiry
report. The charge sheet dated 23.3.2007 contains the charge as follows:-
“01. You are hereby charged with the following offences noted hereunder:-
It is reported that your are habitually absenting form work without leave or prior permission and remained absent
unauthorizedly on the following dates during the year 2006.
Month
Absent Dates
No. of days
January, 2006
1 to 31
31
February, 2006
1 to 28
28
March, 2006
1 to 21, 30
22
April, 2006
1 to 30
30
May, 2006
1 to 31
31
June, 2006
1 to 30
30
July, 2006
1-20
20
August, 2006
1 to 14, 17 to 19, 28 to 31
21
September, 2006
1 to 14, 16 to 30
29
October, 2006
1 to 31
31
November, 2006
1 to 30
30
December, 2006
1 to 31
31
Your above action amounts to misconduct under the Company’s Standing Orders No.25.25 which reads as follows:
“Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”
You have put the actual musters during the last four years are as follows:
2002-113;
2003-100;
2004-102;
2005-008”
Therefore, charge sheet issued against the Petitioner reveals that he has put only 4 actual musters during the year
2006. Further, during the enquiry witness Sri M. Srinivas, Presenting Officer proved the facts of the charges against
the Petitioner. Further, the witness Sri V. Chandra Sekhar, Pay sheet Clerk has also deposed and proved the
documentary evidence in support of charge levelled against the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner himself has
admitted the allegation made in the charge sheet that he remained absent during the year 2006 from the duty. Further,
Petitioner was provided also an opportunity to adduce the evidence in defence Petitioner did not prefer to adduce any
documentary evidence to substantiate his plea of his illness. Further, he could not furnish any plausible explanation
regarding non-intimation of his absence from duty to the Respondent Management. Further, he also failed produce
any plausible explanation as to why he did not report sick to the Colliery Hospital during the alleged absent period.
Clause 25.25 of the Company’s Standing Orders is as follows:-
“Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”
Therefore, in view of the provision of clause 25.25 of Company’s Standing Orders the Petitioner has committed gross
misconduct and he has been rightly held guilty of the charges levelled against him. In this context, I would like to
make reference of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed as below:-
1. In State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, the Apex Court have held:-
“Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several
occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not
amount to such a grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High
Court to interfere with the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of
the charge' especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for
interference with the punishment is made out.”
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3313
2. In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 Apex Court have
held:-
“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant
runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the
buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee
to remain absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite
such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than
three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several
occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein
has to be treated lightly.
3. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held:
"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of
absence, more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was
no negligence and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the
Standing Orders shows the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement
of prior permission. Only exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-
observance of which renders the absence unauthorised."
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in different decisions as discussed above, the act
of the workman being absent from duty without any plausible and reasonable cause has been considered a serious
misconduct. However, in the present case Petitioner utterly failed to adducing in evidence in support of his plea that
due to his illness he could not attend the duty during the absent period mentioned in the charge sheet. Further, the
workman Petitioner also failed to explain as to why he did not intimate about his illness to the Respondent
Management for getting sanctioned leave or to report sick in the Respondent Company hospital. In such
circumstances as the Petitioner remained absent from duty for a long period during the year 2006 with sanctioned
leave or intimation such conduct of the Petitioner is not condonable at all.
12.
Further, as regards the plea of the Petitioner that Disciplinary Authority did not consider his submission
before issuing the impugned order of dismissal and he is sole bread winner of his family consisting of wife and four
school going children. As a result of his dismissal from service, his whole family rendered without any livelihood.
Therefore, prayed for taking lenient view regarding punishment imposed.
13.
On the other hand, Respondent has contended that the Respondent's Company employs more than 68,227
persons, which includes workmen, executives and supervisors. The production results will depend upon the over all
attendance and performance of each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable. In this regard, if
any one remains absent, without prior leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed gets effected.
Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill up, and there will be no proper
planning and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That is the reason why the
Respondent's Company is compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees. In the instant case, the
petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee and he had put in only 007 musters during the year 2006. He was
dismissed after conducting a fair enquiry, giving full opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and providing
him an opportunity of one month time to improve his attendance. The petitioner failed to rectify his mistake. After
issuance of charge sheet he had put in just 012 during the year 2007. His attendance from 2001 to 2007 is also not
satisfactory as he had put in 113, 100, 102, 008, 004, 007 and 012 musters only. As such, the Respondent's Company
was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner for unauthorized habitual absenteeism with effect from 05.01.2008 vide
dismissal order No.MMR/PER/D/O72/ 6752, dated 27.12.2007.
In this context, I would like to make reference of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, Industrial Courts or High Court s would not normally interfere with the
quantum of punishment imposed upon by the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court on this point is quoted below:-
a. In State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276], Hon’ble Apex Court
have held:-
“the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed
upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the High Court or the Tribunal in
exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. Doctrine of
proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now well-settled that the High Court shall be very
slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is found to be shocking to one's conscience."
3314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
b. In Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil Appeal 5762-5763 of 2009 decided
on 24.08.2009, Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test of proportionality of punishment and held:-
“One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any reasonable
employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected
to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances
and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”
c. In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022
LLR page 126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held:
“once the enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper, industrial Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction
to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of
conduct.”
Therefore, in view of settled laws as discussed above, Tribunal has very limited scope to interfere in the order of
Disciplinary Authority. however, the workman failed to establish that the order of dismissal passed by Disciplinary
Authority was perverse on the basis of no evidence.
14.
Since, the Petitioner in the matter on hand has been habitual absentee from duty, due to his conduct the work
of the Respondent Company got obstructed and Company also suffered loss. Therefore, in such circumstances, the
Respondent Disciplinary Authority was constrained to pass the order of dismissal of Petitioner from the service.
Thus, Disciplinary Authority has passed the dismissal order dated 27.12.2007 after taking into consideration the
evidence and finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the representation of the workman and also past record of the
charge sheeted employee. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the dismissal order of the Petitioner under
challenge in this petition.
This Point No.II is answered against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.
15.
Point No.III:- In view of the fore gone discussion and finding at Point No.I & II, and law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief and his petition is liable to be dismissed.
This Point is answered accordingly.
AWARD
In view of the fore gone discussion, and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered
view that the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri Ramagiri China Posham, Ex.
Coal Filler vide order dated 27.12.2007 is held legal and justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for. As such, the petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Therefore, the
petition is dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 21st day of May, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1480.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (43/2018)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/20/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3315
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2024
S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.43/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/20/2018–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/43/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 4th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 27/09/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12011/20/2018 IR(B-I) dt. 27/09/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“1. Whether the termination from service w.e.f. 5/4/2010 of Sh. Mukesh Parmar, temporary peon by the
State Bank of India, Bhopal, is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?
2. Whether the claim of the union, namely, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangthan, Ujjain,
regarding not giving the workman Shri Mukesh Parmar, appointment/termination letter, pay scale,
minimum wages, no maintenance of muster roll amounts to unfair labour practice is justified & legal ? If
so, what relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary ?”
After registering a case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and file
their respective Statement of Claim and Defense.
The case of the workman, in short, is that he was appointed by management on 01.07.2007, he remained in
employment of management till 20.02.2010 when his services terminated without notice or compensation. He was not
paid wages and salary which was entitled to be paid as a temporary employee which is unfair labour practice adopted
by management. The workman has prayed that he be held entitled to wages in parity with temporary employees.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual labour only when work was available in the branch on intermittent basis and was paid for it. He never
worked continuously for 240 days in any year. He was paid minimum wages for his workman. It is further the case of
management that the benefits in the bipartite settlement are available only to regular staff and not to the daily wager.
3316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
At evidence the workman has filed some photocopy documents which he has not cared to prove. He has not
filed any evidence. The management has also not filed any evidence.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Praveen Yadav for management. Non appeared for the
workman side for argument. Management has filed written argument which is part of record.
After perusal of record in the light of arguments, the following issue arise:-
Whether the provision of Bipartite Settlement apply to the daily wagers also ?
Pleadings of the parties on this issue has been mentioned earlier. The burden to prove that the workman was
appointed against a sanctioned vacancy following recruitment process by a competent authority is on him. In absence
of any evidence in support of his allegations, this fact is held not proved. According to management he was a daily
wager casual labour who was engaged intermittently but never in continuous employment for 240 days in any year
and he was paid minimum wages fixed by Government for daily wagers.
A bare reading of the Bipartite Settlement makes it clear that it applies only to the regularly selected
permanent employees. Hence, the workman, being a daily wager, cannot be held to be entitled to wages protection in
the Bipartite Settlement.
On the basis of above discussion holding that the management has not adopted unfair labour practice
in the case in hand, the reference is answered against the workman. No order as to cost.
DATE: 04/06/2024.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1481.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (44/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/19/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2024
S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.44/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/19/2018–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3317
Versus
The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (MP)
Managements
A W A R D
(Passed on this 4th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 27/09/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-12011/19/2018 IR(B-I) dt. 27/09/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“1. Whether the termination from service w.e.f. 4/3/2014 of Sh. Rajesh Malviya temporary peon by the
State Bank of India, Bhopal, is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?
2. Whether the claim of the union, namely, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangthan, Ujjain,
regarding not giving the workman Shri Rajesh Malviya, appointment/termination letter, pay scale,
minimum wages, no maintenance of muster roll amounts to unfair labour practice is justified & legal ? If
so, what relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary ?”
After registering a case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and file
their respective Statement of Claim and Defense.
The case of the workman, in short, is that he was appointed by management on 02.04.2004, he remained in
employment of management till 04.03.2014 when his services terminated without notice or compensation. This action
of management is in violation of Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act. He was not paid wages and salary which was
entitled to be paid as a temporary employee which is unfair labour practice adopted by management. The workman
has prayed that he be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits holding his termination against law.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual labour only when work was available in the branch on intermittent basis and was paid for it. He never
worked continuously for 240 days in any year. He was paid minimum wages for his workman.
At evidence neither of the parties have filed any affidavit nor have they proved any document.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Praveen Yadav for management. Non appeared for the
workman side for argument.
The reference itself is the issue for determination in this case.
The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman who has alleged his continuous engagement by
management for more than 240 days every year. In absence of any evidence, this allegation of the workman is held
not proved.
On the basis of above discussion holding that the management has not adopted unfair labour practice
in the case in hand, the reference is answered against the workman. No order as to cost.
DATE: 04/06/2024.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1482.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (11/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-II)-29]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
3318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2024
S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024–IR (B-II)-29]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Gheesaram Mewada,
S/o Shri Mohan Singh Mewada,
Gram and Post : Borkheda, Tehsil : Astha,
Dist. Sehore (M.P.) - 466114
Workman
Versus
The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Branch Astha, Kannod Road,
Dist. Sehore ( M.P) - 466114
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 28th day of May-2024.)
As per letter dated 03/03/2023 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-
12)/2023-IR dt. 03/03/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-
“क् या आवेिक कमभकार श्री घीसाराम मेवाडा को, कैनरा बैंक प्रबंधन द्वारा दिनांक 15/01/2022 से नौकरी से णबना दकसी
सूचना के णनकाला जाना उणचत है ? यदि नहीं, तो वह दकन लार्ों के साथ पुन: नौकरी पाने का हकिार है ? ”
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.
I have heard the argument of Management Counsel Adv. Shailendra Pandey and perused record. 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.
DATE: 28/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3319
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1483.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (03/2013)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)-192]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2024
S.O. 1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024–IR (B-I)-192]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/03/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Bhopal (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 5th day of June-2024.)
The workman union has filed this petition U/S. 2-A(2&3) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)
challenging the termination of the services of the workman Radheshyam Rathore by management bank.
After registering a case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and file
their respective Statement of Claim and Defense.
The case of the workman union, in short, is that the workman Radheshyam Rathore was appointed by
management on 16.05.1983, he remained in employment of management till 05.01.2011 when his services terminated
without notice or compensation. He was not paid wages and salary which was entitled to be paid as a temporary
employee which is unfair labour practice adopted by management. The union raised dispute against this termination
before Regional Labour Commissioner Bhopal within 3 years of termination and after obtaining a certificate from the
Commissioner regarding failure of conciliation on 06.12.2012, filed this petition on 26.02.2013. The workman union
has prayed that the workman Radheshaym Rathore held entitled to wages in parity with temporary employees.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
3320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as a casual labour only when work was available in the branch on intermittent basis and was paid for it. He never
worked continuously for 240 days in any year. He was paid minimum wages for his workman. It is further the case of
management that the benefits in the bipartite settlement are available only to regular staff and not to the daily wager.
At evidence the workman union has filed and proved photocopy documents appointment letter dated
16.05.1983 for temporary appointment in Sarangpur branch in place of Daftari M.D.Mali being on leave from
16.05.1983 to 22.05.1983, another appointment letter in same capacity in the same branch for period 07.11.1983 to
12.11.1983 on leave vacancy arising out of non presence of permanent employee Aatmaram for this period due to
leave, two certificates in this respect, all photocopies, photocopy cheque Ex. W/1 to W/7. Affidavit of the workman
has been filed as his examination in chief on which he has been cross examined by management. Management has
filed affidavit of its witness who has been cross examined by the workman side. The workman union has further filed
RTI documents regarding statement of account of SB account of the workman from January 2009 to 07.02.2011,
which has been marked as Ex. W/8. Management has not filed any document.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel for workman and Mr. Pranay Choubey for
management. Workman side has filed written argument which is part of record. I have gone through the record and
the written argument.
After perusal of record in the light of arguments, the following issue arise:-
1. Whether the workman union has successfully proved the continuous engagement of the workman
Radheshyam Rathore for a period of 240 days or more in any year including the year preceding the date
of his termination ?
2. Whether, the termination of services of the workman Radheshyam Rathore is in violation of Section 25-G
& 25-F of the Act ?
3. Whether, the workman is entitled to any relief ?
Issue No.-1 :-
Pleadings of the parties on this issue has been mentioned earlier. The burden to prove that the workman was
appointed against a sanctioned vacancy following recruitment process by a competent authority is on him. He has
corroborated his case on this point as stated in his statement of claim in his statement on oath. He further states that he
used to get wages @ of Rs. 100/- per day which was increase to Rs. 150/- per day and later to Rs. 200/- per day and
his wages were credited in his bank account. The management witness has detailed about the number of days he
worked with the bank within the year 1983-84 to 2009-10 which goes to show that he did not worked 240 days in any
year. The cross examination of this witness could not be done because he was not made available by management
before this Tribunal for his cross examination. Hence, the affidavit of this witness on which the other side did not get
opportunity to cross examine him due to his non presence, cannot be read in support of case of management. There is
on record Ex. W/6 filed and proved by workman side, which is statement of payment made by bank within the period
04.01.2010 to 01.04.2011 which goes to show the total number of working days 238 and total amount paid Rs.
46800/- @ of Rs. 3000/- per month. This document is corroborated by the statement of account Ex. W/8 certified by
the bank itself in RTI and filed by workman.
Section 25-B of the Act is being reproduced as follows:-
25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on
the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year
or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer.
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less
than—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less
than—
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3321
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked
under an employer shall include the days on which
(i)
he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any
other law applicable to the industrial establishment;
(ii)
he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii)
he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment; and
(iv)
in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such
maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
Hence, in the light of the evidence referred to above it is held that the workman has successfully proved his
continuous engagement for 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. Issue no.-1 is answered
accordingly.
Issue No.-2 :-
Section 25-G & 25-F are being reproduced as follows :-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that
employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and
the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of
the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of
India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the
absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall
ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons
to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
The workman has stated that he was not paid any notice pay or compensation by the bank at the time of
termination of his services, there is nothing filed by management to rebut this fact, hence, holding that the workman
was not paid any notice pay or compensation, termination of his services are held against law. Issue no.-2 is answered
accordingly.
Issue No.-3 :-
Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that keeping in view the period of his tenure his reinstatement
with back wages will be in the interest of justice. According to learned Counsel, the management has adopted unfair
labour practice as mentioned in Section 2(ra) of the Act, which is prohibited U/S. 25T of the Act.
2(ra) “unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
THE FIFTH SCHEDULE See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
I.—On the part of employers and trade unions of employers
1 to 9……..……………….
10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years,
with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.
11 to 16…………………………
3322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether
registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.
Learned Counsel has referred to Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs.
Executive Engineer (2021) 14 SCC 814, para 35 of which is being reproduced as follows:-
“35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage
worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the
principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There
may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned
terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are
some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such
cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a
relief can be denied.”
It has been held proved that the workman continued as a daily wager for more than 8 years. It may be
assumed that he was engaged for sweeping/cleaning and doing work of a peon because there was job for this. Hence,
it was on the part of management to create a post for it (temporary or permanent) and make regular appointment. The
management did not do this, rather engaged some daily wager for this. The purpose behind such action by
management could be presumed that it was done only for denying someone his opportunity to be regularly appointed.
This action of management is covered under unfair labour practice as referred to above. Hence, the management is
held to have indulged in unfair labour practice.
Learned Counsel has further referred to a Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in
Writ Appeal No.- 1615/2023 in which the judgment of Single Bench in W.P. No.- 14585/2017 confirming the order
of reinstatement of a daily wage casual labour passed by this Tribunal has been approved.
On the other hand learned Counsel for management has submitted that since the workman was not appointed
against any vacant post following recruitment process, his reinstatement will not be the interest of justice and he may
be awarded a lump sum compensation. He has referred to a Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
M.P. in Writ Appeal No.- 1727/2023 in which judgment of Single Bench in W.P. No.- 14651/2016 confirming the
award of this Tribunal in granting lump sum compensation to a daily wager on his termination was confirmed.
The Division Bench observed in the case referred to by learned Counsel for management that for getting
order of reinstatement, the writ petitioner (workman) was required to show that he was not under any gainful
employment during this intervening period. Para 5 of the Judgment is being specifically referred to in this respect.
“The workman has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed after his termination by bank. He has stated
this fact in his statement on oath also. Management has not rebutted this assertion of workman by any evidence.
Hence, the workman is held to have successfully proved his pleading on this point also.”
In the case in hand, the workman has not made any allegation regarding unfair labour practice nor has stated
so in his statement on oath. He has neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed anywhere after
termination of his services. Furthermore, his first appointment in 1983 was for a fixed period on leave vacancy as
disclosed by copies of his two appointment letters. There is nothing on record to show that he was appointed against a
sanctioned post following recruitment process. In the light of these facts prayer by learned Counsel for workman and
his argument that the workman be reinstated cannot be accepted. In my view keeping in mind the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of all the claims, to be paid by
management within 30 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date
of Award till recovery will meet the interest of justice and issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Radheshyam
Rathore against law and unjustified, he is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of all
the claims, to be paid by management within 30 days from the date of notification of Award, failing which interest
@ of 8% p.a. from the date of Award till recovery. No order as to cost.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3323
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1484.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (03/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)-193]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 26th July, 2024
S.O. 1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024–IR (B-I)-193]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/03/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
1. The Assistant General Manager (Zone-V)
State Bank of India,
Regional Office, Budhwariya, Ujjain (MP)
2. Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Madhav Nagar, Ujjain (MP)
Managements
A W A R D
(Passed on this 28th day of May-2024.)
The workman union has filed this petition U/S. 2(A)(2 & 3) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as amended by
the Amendment Act 2010, (in short the ‘Act’) against the alleged illegal termination of the workman Hansraj Sher by
the management of State Bank of India.
The case of the workman, in short, is that he was appointed as Peon in Madhav Nagar Branch of the Bank
on 01.04.2007 against vacancy arising out of death of the peon Omprakash Chouhan. He worked continuously in the
Madhav Nagar, Budhwariya, Freeganj, Patni and Khachroad Branches till 12.08.2015. He was paid his wages in his
bank account. Thereafter he was terminated without notice or wages in lieu of one month notice and without payment
of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
3324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
short the Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He
requested that he be reinstated with full back wages.
After registering the case on the basis of the petition, notices were sent to the managements and were duly
served. They appeared and filed their written statement of defense.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual labour only when work was available in the branch on intermittent basis and was paid for it. He never
worked continuously for 240 days in any year. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable
and therefore, the question of giving notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It is submitted
that his claim be rejected.
In evidence, the workman has filed and proved documents marked Ex. W/1 certified statement of account,
Ex. W/2 letter of management to Regional Labour Commissioner with respect to claim of the workman regarding
bonus and Ex. W/3 certified statement of account from 01.01.2014 to 17.09.2015. He has filed his affidavit as his
examination in chief and has been cross examined by management. Management also has examined its witness by
filing affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief. This witness has been examined by the workman side.
I have heard argument of Mr. Arun Patel learned Counsel for workman union and learned Counsel Mr.
Pranay Choubey for management. The parties has filed any written submissions also which are part of record. I have
gone through the written submissions and the record as well.
After perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the following issues arise:-
1)
Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f.
12.08.2015 is justified?
2)
To what relief he is entitled ?
Issue No.-1:-
Pleadings of the parties on this issue has been mentioned earlier. The burden to prove his continuous
employment for 240 days in a year is on the workman. The workman Hansraj has corroborated his case regarding his
appointment as daily wager peon as well his continuous employment from the date of his appointment which is
01.04.2007 till the date of termination of his services by management of 12.08.2015. In his cross examination he has
stated that he was appointed by the then Branch Manager, no appointment letter was issued to him, no transfer order
was received by him and his salary was credited in his saving bank account. His this statement is corroborated by the
certified statement of account admitted by management which are Ex. W/1 & W/3. On the other hand the
management witness has stated that the workman was engaged for miscellaneous work available in the bank on
intermittent basis as a daily wager. He was not appointed against any vacant post following recruitment process. He
never completed 240 days continuously in any year. This witness admits in his cross examination that he was not
posted in the branch during the period the workman is said to have worked. Hence, naturally, this witness does not
have any personal knowledge in this respect. This witness further states that he has come to know about the facts on
perusal of payment vouchers and internal communications available in the Regional Office.
The documents Ex. W/1 & W/3 admitted by management are the certified statement of account of the
workman. This statement shows that a fixed amount has been credited in the account of the workman in every month
which is transferred from the bank to his account. The bank has not been able to explain the reason behind this
transfer. Hence, the case of the workman that it was the amount paid by the management bank as his wages will be
believed. These documents corroborate the case of the workman that he worked continuously for more than 240 days
in every year till the date of his termination. In the light of above discussion, the fact that the workman was in
continuous employment of management in any capacity for a period of 240 days in any year as claimed by him, is
held proved.
On the basis of the finding when the continuous employment of the workman for more than 240 days is held
proved, in absence of any evidence that he was awarded any compensation or notice pay, his termination is held
against 25-G & 25-F of the Act. Issue no.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2:-
In the light of findings on issue no.-1, the question arises has to what relief the workman is entitled.
Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that keeping in view the period of his tenure his reinstatement
with back wages will be in the interest of justice. According to learned Counsel, the management has adopted unfair
labour practice as mentioned in Section 2(ra) of the Act, which is prohibited U/S. 25T of the Act.
2(ra) “unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3325
THE FIFTH SCHEDULE See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
I.—On the part of employers and trade unions of employers
1. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join
or assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, that is to say:—
(a) threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;
(b) threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organised;
(c) granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organisation, with a view to
undermining the efforts of the trade union organization
2. To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any trade union, that is to
say:—
(a) an employer taking an active interest in organising a trade union of his workmen; and
(b) an employer showing partiality or granting favour to one of several trade unions attempting to
organise his workmen or to its members, where such a trade union is not a recognised trade union.
3. To establish employer sponsored trade unions of workmen.
4. To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating against any workman,
that is to say:—
(a) discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join or organise a trade
union;
(b) discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being as strike which is deemed
to be an illegal strike under this Act);
(c) changing seniority rating of workmen because of trade union activities;
(d) refusing to promote workmen to higher posts on account of their trade union activities;
(e) giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating discord amongst other
workmen, or to undermine the strength of their trade union;
(f) discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of their trade union
activities.
5. To discharge or dismiss workmen—
(a) by way of victimization;
(b) not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights;
(c) by falsely implicating a workman in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted evidence;
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegation of absence without leave;
(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue
haste;
(g) for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without having any regard to the nature of the
particular misconduct or the past record or service of the workman, thereby leading to a disproportionate
punishment.
6. To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such work to contractors
as a measure of breaking a strike.
7. To transfer a workman mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of following management
policy.
8. To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct bond, as a pre-
condition to allowing them to resume work.
9. To show favoritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.
3326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years,
with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.
11. To discharge or discriminate against any workman for filing charges or testifying against an employer
in any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute.
12. To recruit workmen during a strike which is not an illegal strike.
13. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
14. To indulge in acts of force or violence.
15. To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognised trade unions.
16. Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether
registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.
Learned Counsel has referred to Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs.
Executive Engineer (2021) 14 SCC 814, para 35 of which is being reproduced as follows:-
“35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage
worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the
principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There
may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned
terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are
some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such
cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a
relief can be denied.”
It has been held proved that the workman continued as a daily wager for more than 8 years. It may be
assumed that he was engaged for sweeping/cleaning and doing work of a peon because there was job for this. Hence,
it was on the part of management to create a post for it (temporary or permanent) and make regular appointment. The
management did not do this, rather engaged some daily wager for this. The purpose behind such action by
management could be presumed that it was done only for denying someone his opportunity to be regularly appointed.
This action of management is covered under unfair labour practice as referred to above. Hence, the management is
held to have indulged in unfair labour practice.
Learned Counsel has further referred to a Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in
Writ Appeal No.- 1615/2023 in which the judgment of Single Bench in W.P. No.- 14585/2017 confirming the order
of reinstatement of a daily wage casual labour passed by this Tribunal has been approved.
On the other hand learned Counsel for management has submitted that since the workman was not appointed
against any vacant post following recruitment process, his reinstatement will not be the interest of justice and he may
be awarded a lump sum compensation. He has referred to a Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
M.P. in Writ Appeal No.- 1727/2023 in which judgment of Single Bench in W.P. No.- 14651/2016 confirming the
award of this Tribunal in granting lump sum compensation to a daily wager on his termination was confirmed.
The Division Bench observed in the case referred to by learned Counsel for management that for getting
order of reinstatement, the writ petitioner (workman) was required to show that he was not under any gainful
employment during this intervening period. Para 5 of the Judgment is being specifically referred to in this respect.
“The workman has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed after his termination by bank. He has stated
this fact in his statement on oath also. Management has not rebutted this assertion of workman by any evidence.
Hence, the workman is held to have successfully proved his pleading on this point also.”
In the light of above facts and circumstances, the workman is held entitled to reinstatement without back
wages. He is further held entitled to litigation cost Rs. 25,000/- from management payable to him within 30 days from
date of notification of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% from date of Award, till payment.
In the light of above discussion, following Award is passed.
AWARD
Holding the action of management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Hansraj Sher on
12.08.2015 against law, he is held entitled to reinstatement without back wages. He is further held entitled to
litigation cost Rs. 25,000/- from management payable to him within 30 days from date of notification of Award,
failing which interest @ of 8% from date of Award, till payment.
DATE: 28/05/2024.
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3327
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1485.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (14/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/56/2010-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.14/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/56/2010–IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2011
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Anusuchit Jaati Karmachari Kalyan Parishad,
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Indore Road
Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Deputy General Manager,
Central Bank of India, Zonal Office
Arera Hills, Jail Road,
Bhopal (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 11th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 25/02/2011 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 I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12011/56/2010/IR(B-II) dt. 25/02/2011. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action of management of Central Bank of India in not paying the arrears for clerks job as
per revised pay scale from 09.12.1999 to 03.08.2001 to Shri Deepak Khatwase is legal and justified ? What
relief Sh. Deepak Khatwase is entitled to ?
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in branch of the Bank on
03.07.1993. He worked continuously till 03.08.2001. He was given task of clerk and did the works assign to clerks
within the period 09.12.1999 to 03.08.2001 but was not paid wages admissible to clerks, which is arbitrary on the part
3328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of management. He has thus prayed that holding the action of management in not paying him wages admissible to the
clerks inspite of the facts he discharged duties as a clerk for the period 09.12.1999 to 03.08.2001, unjustified in law,
he be held entitled to get wages accordingly.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in branch of the Bank and was
paid for it. It was also pleaded that he was disengaged by the bank. He raised a dispute against his disengagement
which was registered as R/132/02 and was decided against him holding his disengagement not unjustified in law. Also
it has been pleaded that the service conditions of sub-staff of the bank are governed by Bipartite Settlement which
provides regular pay scales as well as revised pay scale only to the employees appointed in the bank against regular
vacancy adopting recruitment procedure. The bank has denied that work of clerk ever taken by the bank from the
workman. Since the workman was a daily wager, he is not entitled to wages as per Bipartite Settlement.
In evidence, none of the parties has filed any evidence. The workman has filed a bunch of photocopy
documents, not admitted by management, and has not cared to prove these documents.
None was present at the time of argument, no written argument has been filed by any of the parties. I have
gone through the record.
The only issue involved in the case is whether a daily wager is entitled to pay as provided in the Bipartite
Settlement, which is applicable to only the regular employees of banks.
1) State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj & Others, AIR 2003 SC 2658. Held –
“A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of daily wager, he holds no posts. The
respondents workers cannot be held to hold any post to claim even any comparison with regular
and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To
claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of
equivalence and resultant hostile discrimination before eligible to claim rights on a par with the
other group vis a vis an alleged discrimination…………….”
2) State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Daya Lal & Others (2011) 2 SCC 429.
This extract is taken from State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
340 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 172 at page 435
12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and
parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained
in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for
regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries,
appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates
cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under
cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into
service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage
service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such
employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and
sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a
scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing
in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to
the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-
off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working
against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees.
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3329
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in
salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor
can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government
employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or
under a statute.
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M. Raja v. CEERI
Educational Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C. Chandra v. State of
Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank
Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [(2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] and Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .
In the case in hand, the workman was a daily wager, not appointed against any sanctioned post following
recruitment process. Hence, the protection under Bipartite Settlement cannot be granted to him in respect of pay.
In the light of above findings, holding that the claim of the workman is not legal, the reference is
answered against him. No order as to cost.
DATE: 11/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1486.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (79/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-41012/29/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.79/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Western Railway and their
workmen.
[No. L-41012/29/2012–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
अनुलग् नक
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-41012/29/2012-IR (B-I) Dated: 30.08.2012
Jh fujatu flag iq= Jh ckcw flag] fuoklh& 352@31] uksudju dk vgkrk] uxj] vtesj] ¼jktLFkku½
-----------izkFkhZ
1- egkizca/kd] mRrj if’pe jsyos] t;iqj] ¼jktLFkku½
3330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2- dkj[kkuk izca/kd ¼Mhty½] yksdks odZ’kkWi mRrj if’pe jsyos] vtesj ¼jktLFkku½
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% izkFkhZ dh vksj ls] dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
% foi{khx.k dh vksj ls] dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 30-08-2012 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10
¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl
vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&
“Whether the action of the management of North Western Railway, Ajmer in
terminating the services of Sh. Niranjan Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh w.e.f. 31.10.2002, is
legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?”
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 29-11-2012 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mlds
firkth dh e`R;q ds ckn vuqdEik vk/kkfjr fu;qfDr [kyklh ds in ij fnukad 03-06-1987 dks nh xbZA rRi'pkr
izkFkhZ dk {k; jksx dk yEcs le; rd bykt pykA izkFkhZ chekjh ds dkj.k fnuakd 23-02-1999 ls 30-11-2000 rd
¼647 fnu½ dh vof/k esa dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqvkA LoLFk gksus ij mls M;wVh ij ys fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds
mifLFkr gksus ij fnukad 23-02-1999 ls 30-11-2000 rd dh vof/k dks vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ekurs gq;s izkFkhZ ds
fo:} xaHkhj 'kkfLr dk vkjksi i= tkjh dj fn;k x;kA ,d o"kZ vkB ekg ckn tkWp vf/kdkjh dk i= feyus ij
izkFkhZ dks Kkr gqvk fd mlds fo:} tkWp izxfr ij gSA tkWp vf/kdkjh us fnukad 07-08-2002 dks tkaWp izfrosnu
izLrqr dj izkFkhZ dks nks"kh ?kksf"kr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dh vihy fnukad 19-07-2003 dks fujLr dj nh xbZA lEiw.kZ
vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fofHkUu vk/kkjksa ij fu;e fo:} gSA ftldk foLr`r fooj.k nkos ds pj.k la[;k& 6 ¼v½ ls
6 ¼Q½ rd of.kZr gSA izkFkhZ ds fo:} dh xbZ tkWp fofHkUu vk/kkjksa ij vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds fo:}
tkjh vkjksi i=] tkWp dk;Zokgh ,oa n.Mkns'k dks vikLr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cgky fd;k tkos] vkSj lHkh
ikfj.kkfed ykHk iznku fd;s tkosA
3- foi{khx.k us fnukad 18-03-2013 dks oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr [kyklh ds in
ij fnukad 03-06-1987 dks dh xbZ FkhA og 647 fnu rd fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgkA izkFkhZ dks
fu;ekuqlkj vkjksi i= tkjh dj mifLFkr jgus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA fof/kor tkWp dk;Zokgh laiUu dj izkFkhZ dks
nks"kh ik;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks leqfpr cpko dk volj nsrs gq;s n.Mkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA leLr tkWp dk;Zokgh
fof/k lEer gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy vkSj fjohtu ;kfpdk;sa Hkh fof/kor fuLrkfjr dh xbZ gSA bl fy;s izkFkhZ
lsok esa cgky gksus ;ksX; ugha gS] u gh dksbZ osru o ifjykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
4- ;g izdj.k tkWp ls lacaf/kr gksus ds dkj.k tkWp dk;Zokgh dh oS/krk ds ijh{k.k ,oa izys[kksa ds izLrqrhdj.k gsrq
yafcr FkkA fnukad 21-11-2019 dks izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us lwfpr fd;k fd izkFkhZ fujatu flag dh e`R;q gks xbZ gSA
blfy, mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa tks fd mldh ekrk o HkkbZ gSa] vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkosA bu fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa
us e`rd ds Hkrhts gfjflag dks viuh vksj ls izkf/kd`r fd;kA
5- fnukad 16-01-2024 dks ;g izkFkZuk i= vf/kdj.k }kjk bl vk/kkj ij fujLr fd;k x;k fd izkFkZuk i= esa ;g
of.kZr ugha gS fd e`rd fookfgr Fkk] ;k ugha vkSj mldh iRuh o larku Hkh gaS vFkok ughaA bl fLFkfr esa e`rd
dh ekrk o HkkbZ;ksa }kjk e`rd ds Hkrhts dks fof/kd izfrfuf/k ds :Ik esa izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
6- izkFkhZ i{k dh fujarj vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds Hkrhts gfjflag dks vf/kdj.k }kjk uksfVl tkjh dj mifLFkr
jgus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3331
7- vkt fnukad 20-05-2024 dks gfjflag iq= nsosUnz flag ¼vk/kkj dkMZ la[;k 4689 0733 3452½ mifLFkr gqvk vkSj
mlus ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj ;g lwfpr fd;k fd e`rd izkFkhZ fujatu flag vfookfgr Fks] vkSj muds dksbZ
vkfJr ugha gSaA gfjflag us ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k fd og bl izdj.k dks vkxs ugha pykuk pgrk gSA vkSj izdj.k
dk fuLrkj.k dj fn;k tkosA
8- bl fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd e`rd izkFkhZ fujatu flag ds mijkar mldk dksbZ fof/kd izfrfuf/k bl okn ds
vxzlj.k gsrq mifLFkr ugha gS] vFkok bl okn ds vxzlj.k gsrq bPNqd ugha gSA pwfda izkFkhZ dh e`R;q ds mijkar
fookn ds vxzlj.k gsrq dksbZ fof/kd izfrfuf/k mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj ftl izkf/kd`r O;fDr dks e`rd dh ekrk o
HkkbZ;ksa us izkf/kd`r fd;k Fkk og O;fDr gfjflag okn ds vxzlj.k dk bPNqd ugha gSA bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr
vfHker ls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ i{k dks foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ysus dh bPNk ugha gSA blfy, mHk;i{k
ds e/; dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha jgk gSA
9- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
10- 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, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1487.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (19/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/08/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.19/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/08/2015–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
3332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
L.H.O. Bhopal (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 12th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 13/02/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number
L-12011/08/2015/IR(B-I) dt. 13/02/2015. The dispute under reference related to :-
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in branch of the Bank on
17.11.2009. He worked continuously till 26.07.2011. Thereafter he was terminated without notice or wages in lieu of
one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under
Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He was not paid wages in the light of Bipartite Settlement which he was entitled to. He
requested that holding his termination against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in branch of the Bank and was
paid for it. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving
notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It was prayed that the reference be answered against
the workman.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit, he has been cross examined by management. He has filed
and proved Ex. W/1 which are photocopy entries regarding payment by bank on different dates according to him,
photocopy letter of management dated 14.05.2015 sent to the Regional Labour Commissioner Bhopal regarding the
details of bonus paid to him, in the year 2009-10, 2010-11, admitted by management and photocopy vouchers
certified by bank. Management has not examined any witness.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel for workman and Mr. Ashish Shroti for
management.
From perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination. Also perused
the written argument of workman side.
1. Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement by bank for 240 days and
more within an year ?
2. Whether, the disengagement of the workman is in violation of Section 25-G, 25-F and 25-N of the Act
?
3. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief ?
Issue No.-1 & 2 :-
Since, both the issues are inter connected, they are being taken together.
Pleadings of the parties on these issues have been detailed earlier. The workman has corroborated his case on
these issues in his affidavit as his examination in chief. His statement nowhere shows that he was issued an
appointment letter, that he appeared in any written examination and interview for the post, any advertisement was
released, his name was sponsored by employment exchange. According to him, he was engaged by the Branch
Manager. The document regarding payment of bonus to the workman for the period 2009-10 & 2010-11 goes to show
that he was paid bonus for working 66 days in 2009-10 and 82 days in 2010-11. He states in his cross examination
that he was paid only half bonus. Even if his this statement is taken true on its face value, it does not indicate that he
worked 240 days or more in any year. The so called day to day payments sheets filed and proved by the workman, do
not have any seal of the bank nor do they have any signature, hence, do not inspire confidence. The list of payment
vouchers also do not corroborate the case of the workman that he worked for more than 240 days work in any year.
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3333
The above description of statements and documents are held not sufficient to prove the engagement of the
workman for 240 days in any year. Hence, his disengagement is held in not violation of the Act.
Issue No.-3 :-
On the basis of findings on issue no.-1 & 2, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
In the light of above findings, holding that the claim of the workman is not legal, the reference is
answered against him. No order as to cost.
DATE: 12/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1488.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (30/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/64/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/64/2012–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
L.H.O., Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)
Management
3334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
(Passed on this 19th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 31/01/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12011/64/2012/IR(B-I) dt. 31/01/2013. The dispute under reference related to :-
“As claimed by union whether Sh. Manish Khatri is entitled for full wages as paid to
permanent peon for the period from 19.11.1994 to 20.01.2010 ? If so, what relief he is entitled to ?”
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in Dhar branch of the Bank
on 19.11.1994. He worked continuously till 11.02.2010. Thereafter he was terminated without notice or wages in lieu
of one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provision of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under
Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He was not paid wages in the light of Bipartite Settlement which he was entitled to. He
requested that he be held entitled to wages paid to permanent peon for the period 19.11.1994 to 11.02.2010.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in branch of the Bank and was
paid for it. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving
notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It has been further pleaded that since the workman
was a daily wager, engaged not on regular basis but subject to availability of work and also that he was not appointed
against any sanctioned vacancy following recruitment process, he is not entitled to parity in wages with permanent
staff. It was prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
In evidence, the workman has not filed his affidavit. He has filed some photocopy documents admitted by
management which are minutes of the meeting held between bank and union representatives on 07.02.1997 Staff
Circular Letter dated 18.02.1997, letter of AGM dated 17.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 which have been marked Exhibits.
The other photocopy documents have not been admitted by management. On application of the workman union, the
management was directed vide order dated 30.09.2016 to produce original documents mentioned in the order which
they did not produced. Workman union was permitted to prove the documents by secondary evidence. They did not
prove these documents.
Management did not file any affidavit of its witness or any documents.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Utkarsh Dohre for workman and Mr. Praveen Yadav for
management. I have gone through the record.
The reference itself is the issue for determination.
The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union. Only filing of photocopy documents and not
proving them inspite of opportunity given to prove them by secondary evidence as well not filing any affidavit even
of the workman or any other witness in support of the allegations in the statement of claims shows that the workman
union has miserably failed to discharge this burden.
Apart from this, whether a daily wager is entitled to parity in pay with a permanent staff is a question of law.
The Bipartite Settlement deals with the regular and permanent staff. According to this settlement, the scales
of pay are admissible only to permanent staff and not to a daily wager. Management has referred to following
decisions of Hon’ble The Apex Court in this respect :-
1) State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj & Others, AIR 2003 SC 2658. Held –
“A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of daily wager, he holds no posts. The
respondents workers cannot be held to hold any post to claim even any comparison with regular
and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To
claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of
equivalence and resultant hostile discrimination before eligible to claim rights on a par with the
other group vis a vis an alleged discrimination…………….”
2) State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Daya Lal & Others (2011) 2 SCC 429.
This extract is taken from State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
340 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 172 at page 435
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3335
12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and
parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained
in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for
regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries,
appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates
cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover
of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service,
as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a
long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim
regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be
grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in
employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the
cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off
date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against
any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary
with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government
employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or
under a statute.
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M.
Raja v. CEERI Educational Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C.
Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] , Kurukshetra
Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [(2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 742]
and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .
In the case in hand, the workman was a daily wager, not appointed against any sanctioned post following
recruitment process. Hence, the protection under Bipartite Settlement cannot be granted to him in respect of pay.
Hence, holding the claim of the workman union not proved, the reference deserves to be answered
against the workman union and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE: 19/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1489.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (44/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/23/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
3336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.44/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/23/2014–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2014
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Region-1, RBO, 5 YN Road,
Indore (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 13th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 30/05/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12011/23/2014/IR(B-I) dt. 30/05/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the demand of Union claiming difference of wages in favour of Shri Subhash Sharma daily
wage employee from 17.11.2009 to 26.07.2011 is justified or not ? If yes, what relief the daily wager is
entitled for ?
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in branch of the Bank on
17.11.2009. He worked continuously till 26.07.2011. Thereafter he was terminated without notice or wages in lieu of
one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under
Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He was not paid wages in the light of Bipartite Settlement which he was entitled to. He
requested that he be paid the difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in branch of the Bank and was
paid for it. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving
notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It was also pleaded that since the workman was a
daily wager, he is not entitled to wages as per Bipartite Settlement.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit, he has been cross examined by management. Management
has not examined any witness.
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3337
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel for workman and Mr. Ashish Shroti for
management.
The only issue involved in the case is whether a daily wager is entitled to pay as provided in the Bipartite
Settlement, which is applicable to only the regular employees of banks.
Learned Counsel for management has referred to following judgments in support of his arguments that a
daily wager is not a regular employee and principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in his case:-
1) State of Haryana Vs. Tilak Raj & Others, AIR 2003 SC 2658. Held –
“A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of daily wager, he holds no posts. The
respondents workers cannot be held to hold any post to claim even any comparison with regular
and permanent staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. To
claim a relief on the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of
equivalence and resultant hostile discrimination before eligible to claim rights on a par with the
other group vis a vis an alleged discrimination…………….”
2) State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Daya Lal & Others (2011) 2 SCC 429.
This extract is taken from State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
340 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 172 at page 435
12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and
parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained
in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for
regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries,
appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates
cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under
cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into
service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage
service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such
employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and
sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a
scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing
in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to
the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-
off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working
against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in
salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor
can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government
employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or
under a statute.
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M.
Raja v. CEERI Educational Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C.
Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] , Kurukshetra
Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [(2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 742]
and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .
In the case in hand, the workman was a daily wager, not appointed against any sanctioned post following
recruitment process. Hence, the protection under Bipartite Settlement cannot be granted to him in respect of pay.
In the light of above findings, holding that the claim of the workman is not legal, the reference is
answered against him. No order as to cost.
DATE: 13/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
3338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1490.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (19/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/58/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.19/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/58/2012–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2013
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan, F-1, Tripti Vihar,
Opp.- Engg. College, Ujjain (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
L.H.O. Bhopal (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 19th day of June-2024.)
As per letter dated 01/02/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-
12011/58/2012/IR(B-I) dt. 01/02/2013. The dispute under reference related to :-
“1.
Whether the claim of Union for regularizing the services of Shri Manish Khatri from the date of
termination is legal and justified ?
2.
If so, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in Dhar branch of the Bank
on 19.11.1994. He worked continuously till 11.02.2010. Thereafter he was terminated without notice or wages in lieu
of one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provision of Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under
Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He was not paid wages in the light of Bipartite Settlement which he was entitled to. He
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3339
requested that holding his termination against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits
and also entitled to be regularized as a Peon in the bank from the date of his termination.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker for supply of water for few hours in a day as and when required in branch of the Bank and was
paid for it. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving
notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It was prayed that the reference be answered against
the workman.
In evidence, the workman has not filed his affidavit. He has filed some photocopy documents admitted by
management which are minutes of the meeting held between bank and union representatives on 07.02.1997 Staff
Circular Letter dated 18.02.1997, letter of AGM dated 17.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 which have been marked Exhibits.
The other photocopy documents have not been admitted by management. On application of the workman union, the
management was directed vide order dated 30.09.2016 to produce original documents mentioned in the order which
they did not produced. Workman union was permitted to prove the documents by secondary evidence. They did not
prove these documents.
Management did not file any affidavit of its witness or any document.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Utkarsh Dohre for workman and Mr. Praveen Yadav for
management. I have gone through the record.
The reference itself is the issue for determination.
The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union. Only filing of photocopy documents and not
proving them inspite of opportunity given to prove them by secondary evidence as well not filing any affidavit even
of the workman or any other witness in support of the allegations in the statement of claims shows that the workman
union has miserably failed to discharge this burden.
1) State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Daya Lal & Others (2011) 2 SCC 429.
This extract is taken from State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S)
340 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 172 at page 435
12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and
parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue
directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming
regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant
rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained
in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for
regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of
selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries,
appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates
cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover
of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service,
as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a
long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim
regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be
grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme
providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in
employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the
cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off
date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against
any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees.
3340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary
with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can
employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government
employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or
under a statute.
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , M. Raja v. CEERI
Educational Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 334] , S.C. Chandra v. State of
Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897] , Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank
Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [(2007) 15 SCC 680 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 742] and Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .
Hence, holding the claim of the workman union not proved, the reference deserves to be answered
against the workman union and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE: 19/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1491.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (11/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)-194]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024–IR (B-I)-194]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/11/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Smt. Basanti Bai
Sweeper, State Bank of India,
Branch Kanawati (7293) Distt.- Neemuch (M.P.)
Through General Secretary
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari Sangathan
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Regional Manager
State Bank of India, RBO
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3341
Mhow-Neemuch Road,
Mandsour (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 18th day of June-2024.)
The workman union has filed the petition U/S. 2(A)(2&3) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as amended by
Act of 2010 against the wrongful termination of his services by the management bank.
After registering a case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. They appeared and file
their respective Statement of Claim and Defense.
The case of the workman, in short, is that she was appointed by management in 1982, she remained in
employment of management till 05.10.2017 when her services terminated without notice or compensation, which is in
violation of Section 25(F) & 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the ‘Act’). She was not paid wages
and salary which was entitled to be paid as a temporary employee which is unfair labour practice adopted by
management. The workman has prayed that she be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits holding
her termination against law.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. She worked
as a casual labour only when work was available in the branch on intermittent basis and was paid for it. She never
worked continuously for 240 days in any year. He was paid minimum wages for her workman. It is further the case of
management that the benefits in the bipartite settlement are available only to regular staff and not to the daily wager.
At evidence the workman did not file any affidavit nor did it prove any document. The management has also
not filed any evidence.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. R.C. Shrivastava for management. None appeared for the
workman side for argument.
After perusal of record in the light of arguments, the reference itself is the issue in this case:-
The burden to prove that the workman was appointed against a sanctioned vacancy following recruitment
process by a competent authority is on him. In absence of any evidence in support of his allegations, this fact is held
not proved. According to management she was a daily wager casual labour who was engaged intermittently but never
in continuous employment for 240 days in any year and he was paid minimum wages fixed by Government for daily
wagers.
On the basis of above discussion holding that the management has not adopted unfair labour practice
in the case in hand, the reference is answered against the workman. No order as to cost.
DATE: 18/06/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1492.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs”ku ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (66/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-42011/32/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.66/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and
their workmen.
[No. L-42011/32/2014–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
3342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
अनुलग् नक
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-42011/32/2014-IR (DU) Dated: 11.08.2014
Jh jktw ikfVy] }kjk& tujy lsdszVjh] ijek.kq fo|qr deZpkjh ;wfu;u] ¼CITU½ CITU ;wfu;u vkWfQl] Qst&2]
jkorHkkVk] dksVk] 323307
-------izkFkhZ
1- n lkbZV Mk;jsDVj]] jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs'ku] jkorHkkVk] ih-vks-& v.kq'kfDr] dksVk] ¼jkt-½A
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh ts- lh- xqIrk] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh /keZsUn tSu] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 11-08-2014 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 %&
“
?
?”
2- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 09-02-2015 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;g lacaf/kr
Jfed jktw ikfVy dh vksj ls ekax nkok izLrqr djus dks vf/kd`r gSA Jfed jktw ikfVy dh fu;qfDr foi{kh
laLFkku esa fnukad 30-12-1999 ls okMZ ckW; ds in ij dh xbZ FkhA Jfed dks fnukad 01-08-2005 ls okMZ ckW;
gsYij ch-&lh ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;kA rFkk fnukad 01-07-2011 ls vLirky esa dk;Z lgk;d & ch- ds in
ij LFkkfir fd;k x;kA o"kZ 2004 esa izkFkhZ Jfed us foi{kh ls vuqefr ysdj rduhdh ;ksX;rk vftZr dj yhA
bl ;ksX;rk ,oa ofj"Brk ds vk/kkj ij mls ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij fnukad 11-07-2011 ls inksUufr dh
vk'kk Fkh fdarq foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dh inksUufr gsrq dksbZ volj iznku ugha fd;k x;k tks izkFkhZ ds
laoS/kkfud vf/kdkjksa dk mYy?kau gSA vr% okn Lohdkj dj Jfed jktw ikfVy dks fnukad 01-11-2011 ls ,Dl&js
VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij inksUurh nsrs gq;s leLr ikfj.kkfed ykHk fnyk;s tkoasA
3- foi{kh us oknksRrj esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed jktw ikfVy dks okMZ ckW; ds in ls lgk;d& ch- ds :i esa
inksUufr ns nh xbZ FkhA jktw ikfVy 2011 esa ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij inksUufr ds fy;s fu;ekuqlkj ik=
ugha FksA lgk;d deZpkfj;ksa ds VSªd cnys tkus dh ;kstuk ykxw dh xbZ Fkh] fdarq izkFkhZ Jfed U;wure dk;Z o"kZ
iwjs u gksus ds dkj.k ;kstuk dk ykHk izkIr ugha dj ldkA izkFkhZ ds lkFk dksbZ HksnHkko dk O;ogkj ugh fd;k
x;kA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3343
4- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuksa ds mijkar ;g okn izkFkhZ dh lk{; esa fu;r fd;k x;kA fdarq vkt fnukad 13-05-2024 dks
izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us LosPNk ls fookn ij cy u nsrs gq;s vius okn ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk
pkgkA foi{kh us Hkh bl fLFkfr esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA vkSj lk{; lekIr dj nhA
5- bl izdkj ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us vius ekax nkos ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gSA lk{; ds vHkko esa
izkFkhZ ;g izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd Jfed jktw ikfVy okMZ ckW; dks ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij inksUur
fd;s tkus dh ekax U;k;ksfpr ,oa rdZlaxr gSA izkFkhZ dh lk{; ds vHkko esa og foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk
vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
6- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
7- 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, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1493.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs”ku ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (72/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-42011/88/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.72/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and
their workmen.
[No. L-42011/88/2015–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
अनुलग् नक
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-42011/88/2015-IR (DU) Dated: 13.08.2015
Jh jktk vuoj] }kjk& tujy lsdszVjh] ijek.kq fo|qr deZpkjh ;wfu;u] ¼CITU½ CITU ;wfu;u vkWfQl] Qst&2]
jkorHkkVk] dksVk] 323307
-----------izkFkhZ
1- n lkbZV Mk;jsDVj]] jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs’ku] jkorHkkVk] ih-vks-& v.kq'kfDr] jkorHkkVk] dksVk] ¼jkt-½
323303
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
3344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
% Jh ts- lh- xqIrk] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh lkxjey pkSgku vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh /keZsUn tSu] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ &foi{khx.kA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 13-08-2015 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 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 %&
“
?
?”
2- izkFkhZ us fnukad 28-03-2016 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd Jfed Jh jktk vuoj dh
fu;qfDr gsYij ds in ij foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 26-11-1999 dks gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ Jfed QksdZfy¶V vkWijsVj@dzsu
vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djrk vk jgk FkkA 12 twu] 2014 dks Jfed dks bysDVªhdy lc LVksj ds dk;Z ds fy, M;wVh
yxk nh xbZA Jfed dks bl izdkj bysDVªhdy lc LVksj esa yxkuk voS/k gS tks fujLr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA vr%
okn Lohdkj dj Jfed jktk vuoj dks fnukad 12-06-2014 ls bysDVªhdy lc LVksj esa LVksj dhij dk dk;Z
djok;s tkus ds vkns’k dks fujLr djrs gq;s Jfed QksdZfy¶V vkWijsVj@dzsu vkWijsVj dk dk;Z fn;s tkus dk
vkns'k fn;k tk;sA
3- foi{kh us fnukad 11-01-2022 oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s nkos ds vfHkdFku dks vLohdkj fd;k vkSj ;g dgk fd
izkFkhZ Jfed ls dHkh Hkh QksdZfy¶V vkWijsVj@dzsu vkWijsVj ds in dk dk;Z ugha fy;k x;kA foi{kh ds fu;eksa ds
vuqlkj bysDVªhdy lc LVksj esa izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij yxk;k tk ldrk gSA vr% ;kfpdk fujLr dj nh tkosA
4- vfHkopuksa ds iw.kZ gks tkus ij okn izkFkhZx.k dh lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k x;kA
5- fnukad 24-05-2024 dks izkFkhZx.k ds izfrfuf/k us LosPNk ls izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA vr%
lk{; izkFkhZ lekIr dj nh xbZA
6- foi{kh vfHkHkk"kd us Hkh bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA vr% lk{; foi{kh Hkh
lekIr dj nh xbZA
7- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us Jfed jktk vuoj dks QksdZfy¶V vkWijsVj@dzsu vkWijsVj ds
in dk dk;Z u fn;s tkus dks fdlh izdkj vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ugha crk;k gSA vkSj dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dhA
blfy, lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZx.k foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
8- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
9- 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, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1494.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs”ku ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (64/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-42011/35/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3345
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.64/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and
their workmen.
[No. L-42011/35/2014–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
अनुलग् नक
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-42011/35/2014-IR (DU) Dated: 11.08.2014
Jhefr glhuk ch-] }kjk&tujy lsdszVjh] ijek.kq fo|qr deZpkjh ;wfu;u] ¼CITU½ CITU ;wfu;u vkWfQl] Qst&2]
jkorHkkVk] dksVk] 323307
-------izkFkhZ
1- n lkbZV Mk;jsDVj]] jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs’ku] jkorHkkVk] ih-vks-& vuq’kfDr] dksVk] ¼jkt-½ 323303
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh ts- lh- xqIrk] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh /keZsUn tSu] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 11-08-2014 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 %&
“
?
?”
2- izkFkhZ us fnukad 09-02-2015 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u Jfed dk
izfrfuf/kRo djrh gS vkSj ekax nkok izLrqr djus dks vf/kd`r gSA Jfed Jhefr glhuk ch- dh fu;qfDr fnukad
21-05-1997 ls foi{kh laLFkku esa okMZ vk;k Þ,Þ ds in ij dh xbZA fnuakd 01-11-2004 ls Jfed dks okMZ vk;k
gsYij Þch-&lh-Þ ds in ij inksUufr nh xbZA Jfed }kjk foHkkxh; vuqefr ysdj esMhdy ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u
ijh{kk 2003 esa mRrhZ.k dj yh xbZA blh izdkj o"kZ 2006 esa esMhdy bZ-lh-th- VsDuhf'k;u ijh{kk mRrhZ.k dh xbZA
foi{kh ds vLirky esa bZ-lh-th- VsDuhf'k;u rFkk ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u ds in fjDr gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dk;Z {kerk o
ofj"Brk ds vk/kkj ij inksUurh dh ik= FkhA deZpkfj;ksa dks izxfr o fodkl dk volj fn;k tkuk vko';d gSA
fdarq izkFkhZ Jfed dks inksUufr gsrq fopkfjr ugha fd;k x;kA vkSj u gh inksUufr nh xbZA ftlls izkFkhZ ds
3346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
laos/kkfud vf/kdkjksa dk guu gqvkA vr% okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ Jhefr glhuk ch- dks bZ-lh-th- o ,Dl&js
VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij fnukad 01-11-2011 ls inksUufr nsrs gq;s leLr osru ,oa ikfj.kkfed ykHk fnyk;s tk;sA
3- foi{kh us oknksRrj esa ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jhefr glhuk ch- dks fu;ekuqlkj lgk;d&ch- ds :Ik esa inksUufr nh
xbZA izkFkhZ bZ-lh-th- VsDuhf'k;u o ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr ds fy;s ik= ugha FkhA
izkFkhZ dh foxr pkj o"kksZ dh ,-lh-vkj- ekin.M ds vuqlkj u gksus ls mls Vsªd ifjorZu dh ;kstuk dk ykHk ugha
fn;k tk ldkA fu;ekuqlkj izkFkhZ dh ekax Lohdk;Z u gksus ls izkFkhZ dks ykHk ugh fn;k tk ldrkA vr% okn
fujLr fd;k tkosA
4- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopu izkIr gks tkus ij izdj.k lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k x;kA vkt fnukad 13-05-2024 dks izkFkhZ ds
izfrfuf/k us LosPNk ls fookn ij cy u nsrs gq;s izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA foi{kh us
Hkh bl fLFkfr esa viuh lk{; ekIr dj nhA
5- i=koyh dk voyksdu ;g n’kkZrk gS fd izkFkhZ us mHk;i{k ds e/; fo|eku fookn ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr
ugha dh gSA izkFkhZ ds lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ Jfed glhuk ch- dks bZ-lh-th- VsDuhf'k;u o ,Dl&js VsDuhf'k;u
ds in ij inksUufr gsrq fdlh izdkj vf/kdkjoku gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ lk{; ds vHkko esa
foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
6- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
7- 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, 29 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1495.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs”ku ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (73/2015)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-42011/89/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 29th July, 2024
S.O. 1495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.73/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and
their workmen.
[No. L-42011/89/2015–IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
अनुलग् नक
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh
Reference No. L-42011/89/2015-IR (DU) Dated: 13.08.2015
Jh v'kksd pkSgku o 40 vU; Jfedx.k] }kjk&tujy lsdszVjh] ijek.kq fo|qr deZpkjh ;wfu;u] ¼CITU½ CITU ;wfu;u
vkWfQl] Qst&2] jkorHkkVk] dksVk] 323307
-----------izkFkhZx.k
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3347
1- n lkbZV Mk;jsDVj]] jktLFkku vkWVksfed ikWoj LVs'ku] jkorHkkVk] ih-vks-& v.kq'kfDr] jkorHkkVk] dksVk] ¼jkt-½
323303
--------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh
mifLFkr%&
% Jh ts- lh- xqIrk] vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZA
% Jh lkxjey pkSgku vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh /keZsUn tSu] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ &foi{khx.kA
1- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 13-08-2015 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 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 %&
“
?
?”
2- fnukad 28-03-2016 dks izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd R.A.P.S.
1 ,oa 6 rFkk R.A.P.P. 7 ,oa 8 ds dsUVhu esa dk;Zjr Jfed] tks la[;k esa dqy 41 gSa] ftudk fooj.k Dyse ds
iSjk la[;k 1 esa of.kZr gS] us dsUVhu dk;ksZ dk fu"iknu fu"Bk ds lkFk fd;k gSA eq[;ky; eqEcbZ ds vkns'k fnukad
11-07-2006 }kjk ;g funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS fd dsUVhu esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dk jh fMIyks;esaV djrs gq;s inksUufr
nh tk;sA fdarq foi{kh izca/ku }kjk bl vkns'k dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA blfy, dsUVhu deZpkfj;ksa dks vkfFkZd
{kfr igqWap jgh gSA vr% fuosnu gS fd mi;qZDr dsUVhu deZpkfj;ksa dks o"kZ 2006 ls jh fMIyks;esaV dj inksUufr
nsrs gq;s osru ,oa ,sfj;j dk Hkqxrku djok;k tkosA
3- fnukad 11-1-2022 dks foi{kh }kjk oknksRrj izLrqr djrs gq;s Dyse ;kfpdk dk fojks/k fd;k x;kA mudk dFku gS
fd dze la[;k 27 ij vafdr Jfed jktw dks fnukad 22-12-2005 dks vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr ns nh xbZA vkns'k
fnukad 11-07-2006 dh ikyuk fnukad 06-09-2012 rd gh dj nh xbZ gS] vkSj lHkh dsUVhu deZpkfj;ksa dk
jh fMIyks;esaV dj fn;k x;k gSA fookn ls lacaf/kr Jfed dh foi{kh laLFkku esa izpfyr fu;eks ds vuqlkj
inksUufr ns nh xbZ gS] vkSj mUgsa vkfFkZd {kfr ugha gqbZ gSA vr% okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosA
4- vfHkopuksa ds iw.kZ gks tkus ij okn izkFkhZx.k dh lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k x;kA
5- fnukad 24-05-2024 dks izkFkhZx.k ds izfrfuf/k us LosPNk ls izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA vr%
lk{; izkFkhZ lekIr dj nh xbZA
6- foi{kh vfHkHkk"kd us Hkh bl fLFkfr esa foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{; izLrqr ugha djuk pkgkA vr% lk{; foi{kh Hkh
lekIr dj nh xbZA
7- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k us mUgsa fnukad 17-07-2006 ds vkns’kkuqlkj jh fMIyks;esaV u
djus vkSj inksUufr ykHk ls oafpr j[kus dh foi{kh dh dk;Zokgh dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k izekf.kr djus gsrq dksbZ
lk{; izLrqr ugha dh gSA blfy, lk{; ds vHkko esa izkFkhZx.k foi{kh ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha
gSA
8- Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA
9- 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
3348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 30 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1496.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मेससभ मााँ कंस्रक्शन ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (25/2023)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-I)-195]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2024
S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.25/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Maa
Construction. and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024–IR (B-I)-195]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 25 OF 2023
PARTIES: Umesh Thakur.
Vs.
Management of M/s. Maa Construction.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Workman :
Mr. Anirban Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the Management :
Mr. Biswajit Bandyopadhyay, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Construction
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
05.06.2024.
A W A R D
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India through the Office of the
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, vide its Order No. 1(3)/2023/E dated 23.03.2023 has been
pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of M/s. Maa Construction and
their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
S C H E D U L E
“ Whether the action of the M/s. Maa Construction (Contractor) in terminating the service of Shri Umesh
Thakur, Contract Labour w.e.f. 01/09/2022 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Shri Umesh Thakur is entitled
there to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. 1(3)/2023/E dated 23.03.2023 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Asansol, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of the dispute
Reference case No. 23 of 2023 was registered on 15.05.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3349
through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in
support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
The case is fixed up today for appearance of Umesh Thakur and filing written statement by the dismissed
workman. On repeated call at 12.43 p.m. none appeared for M/s. Maa Construction. No step is taken on behalf of
Umesh Thakur. On a perusal of the record, it appears that M/s. Maa Construction filed their written statement on
27.09.2023.
3.
Umesh Thakur, petitioner had appeared in person on 25.08.2023, 27.09.2023, 03.11.2023 and was
represented by Mr. Anirban Mukherjee on 05.12.2023. On 29.01.2024 none appeared for the workman and no step
was taken. Umesh Thakur was directed to show cause on 12.04.2024 as to why Industrial Dispute shall not be
dismissed for not filing written statement and for his non-appearance. Earlier order has not been complied and no step
has been taken by the dismissed employee. The case was fixed on 24.05.2024 but no step was taken by him.
4.
The workman is not found diligent in proceeding and has not filed his written statement after opportunities
provided to him. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Industrial Dispute raised by the
workman has failed due to his default and non-compliance. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1497.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ua 2 दिल्ली ds iapkV (199/2021)izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-39025/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-II)-30]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2024
S.O. 1497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.199/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No -2
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2024–IR (B-II)-30]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 199/2021
Sh. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sh. Jai Chand,
R/o- X-3938/3, Gali No. 13, Shanti Mohalla,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
VERSUS
1.
Bank of Baroda,
Defence Enclave, Preet Vihar, New Delhi – 110092.
3350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Clear Secured Services Pvt. Ltd.,
140, 1st Floor, Shahpur Jat, Near Panchsheel
Samukdai Kender, Hauzkhas, New Delhi- 110049.
AWARD
This is an application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act). Claimant
had stated in their claim statement that he was appointed by the management-1 on the post of Security Guard on
10.01.2019 and his last drawn wages was Rs. 16,928/- Per month. The management had not issued any appointment
letter to him. The management-1 has deputed to him at the ATM of the management no-2 at Defence Enclave, Preet
Vihar, Delhi w.e.f. 23.08.2019. He had been doing his work with diligently and never given any chance of complaint
to the managements but he has not been provided any legal facilities. The workman used to work under the direction
and supervision of management-1 & 2. On 24.10.2019 when the workman had demanded for his earned wages for the
month of September 2019 to management-1, management-1 got annoyed with workman. Then management-1 had
paid the said wages to the workman, but on the same day on 24.10.2019, the management-1 had illegally terminated
the workman from his service without any rhyme or reason and without paying the earned wages for twenty-four days
of October 2019 to him. After the illegal termination workman is jobless. Workman had sent the demand notice to the
managements through his union, but the managements have not reinstated the workman on duty. He has gone to the
conciliation officer, but, no result was yielded. Hence he has filed the claim.
Vide letter dated 30.08.2022, management-1 & 2 had been proceeded ex-parte. Now, the matter is listed for
ex-parte evidence.
Claimant is asked to prove his case. However, despite providing a number of opportunities, claimant has not
turned up to prove his claim. As the claimant has not turned up for proving his case, his claim stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required
under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.
Date: 30.04.2024
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1498.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अहमिाबाि ds iapkV (31/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/35/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 31th July, 2024
S.O. 1498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/35/2022–IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3351
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 12th June, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 31 / 2022
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, 3rd Floor, Rudra Arcade,
Near Aroma Circle, Deesa Highway Road,
Palanpur, Banaskantha Distt.
….…….First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Vijaya Bank Worker’s Organization (Regd.),
C/o Com. Janak Rawal, Mahagujarat Bank Employees Association,
Nandanvan Complex, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380006
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/35/2022-IR (B-II) dated 08.03.2022 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the Vijaya Bank Workers Organisation(Regd) for regularizing Shri Jignesh Vaghela and
four others (List attached as Annexure- ‘A’) in the service of Bank of Baroda, Banaskantha Region, Banaskantha,
Gujarat by considering their past service is legal, just & proper? If so, to what relief Shri Jignesh Vaghela and
four others are entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 21th March, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as
directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1499.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dsujk cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अहमिाबाि ds iapkV (21/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/31/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
3352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 31th July, 2024
S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.21/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/31/2022–IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 12th June, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 21 / 2022
1. The General Manager,
Canara Bank, Regional Office, Ahmedabad,
Neelkanth Avenue Building, Gujarat Vidyapith Road, Sattar Taluka Society, Ahmedabad(Gujarat)-
380013
2. The Assistant General Manager(HRM),
Canara Bank, Circle Office, 7th Floor, Gift City,
Gandhinagar(Gujarat)- 382355
3. The Manager,
Canara Bank, 112, J.C. Road, Head Office,
Bangalore- 560002
….…….First Parties
V/s
The President,
Akhil Bharatiya Karmachari Mahasangh,
28-B, Narayan Park, B/h. Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 382470
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the below
mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/31/2022-IR (B-II) dated 24.02.2022 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
[[र्ाग II—खण् ड3(ii)]
र्ारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 3, 2024/श्रावि 12, 1946
3353
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Mahasangh for regularization of service of S/Shri Manendra
Babubhai Solanki and Maulikbhai Nandubhai Prajapati, daily workers working in Ranip & Gota branches of
Canara Bank respectively by the Canara Bank, is fair, legal & justified? If so, What relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 11th March, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as
directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2024
का.आ. 1500.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk
cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अहमिाबाि ds iapkV (17/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y-12011/25/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप णनिेशक
New Delhi, the 31th July, 2024
S.O. 1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.17/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their
workmen.
[No. L-12011/25/2022–IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 12th June, 2024
3354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 3, 2024/SHRAVANA 12, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Reference (CGITA) No. - 17 / 2022
The Regional Manager,
Canara Bank, 150ft. Ring Road,
Rajkot- 360001
….…….First Party
V/s
Sh. K.P. Patnai, General Secretary,
Gujarat Bank Workers Union,
Rahbar, 8-Jagnath Plot,
P.O. Box No.-10, Rajkot- 360001
..….….Second Party
For the First Party
: None
For the Second Party
: None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-12011/25/2022-IR (B-II) dated 21.02.2022 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the terminating the service of Shri Dharmesh Jaykant Zala, Casual Worker, without notice after he has
worked for six years; reinstating him on raising of Industrial dispute and eventually terminating his service again
by the management of Canara Bank, Rajkot, is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 03th March, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party raising
the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within 15 days
of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. A period of more than two years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of claim as
directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
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: 2024.09.11 11:36:38
+05'30'