6157 GI/2024

(4271)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 39]

नई दिल् ली, जसतम् बर 29—अक् तूबर 5, 2024, िजनवार/ आजिन 7—आजिन 13, 1946

No. 39]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 29— OCTOBER 5, 2024, SATURDAY/ASVINA 7– ASVINA 13, 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)

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल

(जिन् िी अनुभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 20 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1859.—केंद्र सरकार, रािभाषा (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 कमाचारर ों ने जिन्िी का का ासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िज:

1. कमाचारी राज् बीमा जनगम, उृ क्षेत्री का ााल , ृीन् ा (कनााटक)

2. कमाचारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, अंकलेिर (गुिरात)

3. कमाचारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, वाृी (गुिरात)

4. कमाचारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, उद्योगमंडल (केरल)

5. कमाचारी राज् बीमा जनगम जचदकत्सा मिाजवद्याल सि अस्ट्ृताल, जबिटा (जबिार)

[फा. सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.]

नागेि कुमार ससंि, उृमिाजनिेिक

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102024-257833

CG-DL-W-14102024-257833

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14102024-257833

CG-DL-W-14102024-257833

4272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

(Hindi Section)

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2024

S.O. 1859.—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, Peenya (Karnataka)

2. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Ankleshwar (Gujarat)

3. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Vapi (Gujarat)

4. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Udyogmandal (Kerala)

5. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Medical College and Hospital, Bihta (Bihar)

[F. No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN]

NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General

नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1860.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ृांड्यन ग्राम बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चेन्नई ds iapkV (a66/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा. सं. ,y&12011@18@2016&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2024

S.O. 1860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.66/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Pandhan Gramin Bank and their

workmen.

[F. No. L-12011/18/2016-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 66/2017

Ref. No. L-I2011/18/2016 (IR(B-I) Dated 08.06.2-17

BETWEEN

Pandyan Grama Bank Workers Union

Represented by the general secretary

O/o Pandyan Grama Bank

Soolakkaraimedu-6262203

Tamilnadu

……… Workman

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4273

AND

The Chairman

Pandyan Grama Bank

Administrative Office,

2-70-1 Collectorate Complex,

Virudhanagar

Tamilnadu

……. Respondent

AWARD

On 08.06.2017 appropriate authority referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudhuagar for recovering the excess

money paid to the workman, whose causes are espoused by the Pandyan Grama Bank workers Union as per

list enclosed in Annexure- I are legal and justified? if not, to what relief, the workmen/union is entitled to?

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Case of the workman

Facts as pleaded by the claimant in its statement of claim in brief are as under:-

1. The Petitioner Association is representing the workers of the Respondent Bank. The Respondent Bank is a

Regional Rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1975. Indian Overseas Bank is the sponsor

Bank. The salary and allowances are being extended to staff members of Regional Rural Banks on par with their

sponsor Bank. Whenever Salary revision is effected in Banking Industry, Government of India will also extend the

same to RRBs as per directions of Supreme Court dated 31.01 2001 in civil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999.

2. Government of India vide order No F.No. 8/1/2015-RRB dated 31.7.2015 revised the pay scales of RRB

employees and officers consequent upon the revision of the wages in nationalized commercial banks in terms of 10^th

Bipartite settlement with effect from 1.11.2012. Respondent Bank implementation the wages revision in the month of

August 2015.

3. Accordingly Officers (Group A), Office Assistants (Group B) and Office Attendants (Group C) working in

Respondent Bank go corresponding wage revision and corresponding arrears from the date 1.11.2012. But the Office

Assistants promoted from Office Attendants cadre in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 were not given corresponding

increase in wage revision and arrears due to them. For many of them, the revised salary in the month of Aug, 2015 as

per 10th bipartite settlement was lower than the salary they got in the month of July, 2015 as per 9th bipartite

settlement.

4. The petitioner Union discussed the issue with the respondent Bank and it was told by the respondent that there was

wrong fixation of pay to the Office Assistants at the time of promotions from the Office Attendants in the years 2011,

2012 and 2013 and the excess payment of increments was rectified then.

5. Respondent Bank reduced the increments and denied the arrears thereupon without any prior notice to the

concerned Office Assistants.

6. Hence the petitioner herein looking at the plight of these workmen, who are members of the petitioner association,

demanded prior notice from the respondent for the reduction of increments, non recovery of excess payment till the

issue of proper notice and corresponding arrears due to them from 1.11.2012. Since the respondent refused to concede

the demands. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer.

6. Before the conciliation officer Respondent Bank accepted its wrong fixation of pay and reduction of increments for

the Office Assistants promoted from the Office Attendant cadre in the years 2011 and 2012. It was added by the

Respondents that the Office Assistants promoted from Office Attendants in the year 2013 were rightly fixed pay

scales and got arrears.

7. Consequently Respondent Bank intimated the reduction of increments and rectification of pay to the concerned

Office Assistants vides its letter date 4.3.2016.

8. But Respondent Bank was rigid in its stand to recover the amount of payments have mistakenly been made by the

employer. And thereby, the Respondent refused to pay the arrears as per 10th bipartite settlement to the Office

Assistants for their corresponding salary they were already paid from 1.11.2012.

Next argument advanced by learned counsel for appellant is that the respondent may be directed to restore pay of the

81 workmen in this dispute as it was prior to re-fixation and also pay the amount recovered from them along with the

arrears due to them with interest @ 6% per annum.

4274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In support of his argument learned counsel for appellant place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of (a) (State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih) (2015) 4 SCC 334. (b) in the case of Thomas

Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & others in civil No. 7115/2010 dated 2^nd May, 2022.(c) And the Hon’ble Madras High

Court in the case of A. Jayaraman Vs. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, and others dated 12.10.2022

passed in writ petition No. (MD) No. 21473/2022.

Accordingly it is prayed by learned counsel for appellant present that relief as claimed by claimant may kindly be

granted, case may be allowed.

Case of respondent

Learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of the facts as stated in the counter affidavit reproduced herein

below:-

This respondent Bank is a Regional Rural Bank formed under Regional Rural Bank Act 1976 enacted by the

Parliament and sponsored by the Indian Overseas Bank having is Head office at Collectorate Complex,

Virudhunagar

It is submitted that in exercise of power conferred under second proviso of Section 17(2) of the Regional Rural

Bank Act 1976, the Central Government is empowered to revise the salary and allowance of Regional Rural

bank employees on par with employees of the Nationalized Banks, consequent upon any revision of pay

structure of employees in terms of Bipartite settlement.

It is submitted that Xth Bipartite settlement was implemented during the month of August 2015 in the

respondent Bank as per the directions of the Government of India on par with Nationalized Bank. Consequent to

the implementation of the settlement, the pay revision was made and arrears were paid to the eligible persons

and the recovery was also made from whom the fixation was made with higher component of pay during their

promotion

It is submitted that consequent to the implementation of Xth Bipartite settlement, the pay revision was made and

arrear was paid to eligible staff members of the Bank and the recovery was also claimed from whom the

fixation was made with higher component of pay during their promotion In respect of the staff members who

got promotion from office attendant (MP) (MP) during the year 2011, 2012 and 2013, the fitment was made on

the basis of fitment prevailing in the Bank for clerical cadre during the Unfortunately the Bank had received one

new fitment formula from Association vide their letter no CIR/HR&IFU76/515/2011 received by Indian

Overseas Bank, our Sponsor Bank on 09.07 later on communicated to us. On receipt of that circular, we came in

www the fitment was wrongly made to the promoted Office Attendant (MB) OAS) and hence we have done the

correct fitment while on Bipartite settlement and eligible arrears were calculated and paid to 41 staff members

who were entitled to receive after partially adjusting the of 81 promoted Office Assistant (MP) due from their

respective date of and wherever excess payment was arisen, it was claimed from those staff members who were

fitted with wrong fitment.

It is submitted that Office Attendant (MP) who were promoted to Office Assistant (MP) those who were entitled

to receive the arrear after fixing the correct scale of pay were given arrears. For the rest of the promoted Office

Attendant (MP), the recovery of excess payment has been claimed whoever fitted with wrong fitment during

their promotion.

It is submitted that in so far as the contention of the petitioner in paragraph 5, there was a wrong fixation due to

promotion which was noticed only after receipt of the said circular from Indian Banks Association. So the

increment was reduced for arriving the correct component of pay and thereby the arrear was paid only for the

eligible staff member after partially but not fully adjusting the excess payment. The petitioner was well aware of

the same.

It is submitted that in so far the contention of petitioner in paragraph 6, the wrong fixation of pay was adjusted

to arrive at correct fitment thereby the recovery was claimed after adjustment and correction. The revised

fitment was also communicated to all individual members vide respondent communication dated 04.03.2016

and working sheet also containing the quantum of amount excessively paid to them was also supplied to them

along with the said communication. But the full recovery process was not yet made from the members

concerned.

In so far as the contention of the petitioner in paragraph 7 and 8 it is submitted all the promoted 81 OAA were

fixed with wrong fitment and it was rectified and the correct fitment was made according to the circular

received from Indian Banks Association.

In support of his argument placed reliance on the judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed

Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar (2009) 3 Supreme Court cases 475, relevant paragraph quoted herein

below:-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4275

57.

This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of

emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud

on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong

principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which

is subsequently found to be erroneous.

58.

The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity,

exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is

ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was

in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a

short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts

and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v.

State of Haryana, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar³, V. Gangaram v.

Director, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of Indias, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Punjab National

Bank v. Manjeet Singh and Bihar SEB v. Bljay Bhadur.

Accordingly learned counsel for respondent submits that claimant is not entitled for any relief and the present claim

petition/ID case filed by him, liable to be dismissed.

Finding & conclusion

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record.

As per undisputed fact of the present case the member of the claimant union/workmen while discharging their duties

in the respondent bank, on the basis of the following facts:-

(a)

Government of India vide order No F.No 8/1/2015 31.07.2015 revised the pay scales of RRB employees and

officers consequent upon the revision of the wages in nationalized banks in terms of 10th Bipartite settlement

with effect from 01.11.2012. Respondent Bank implemented the wage revision in the month of August 2015.

(b)

Accordingly Officers (Group A), Office Assistants (Group B) and Office Attendants (Group C) working in

Respondent Bank got corresponding wage revision and corresponding arrears from the date 01.11.2012.

(c)

The 81 workmen in the present dispute were promoted as Office Assistant (Multi-purpose) along with 45 other

Office Attendants (Multi-purpose) in 2011. Subsequently, in 2012 and 2013, subsequent batches of Office

Attendants were promoted in successive years. At the time of promotion, my pay was fixed under the 9th

Bipartite Settlement dated 27.11.2009.

(d)

Thereafter, the 10th Bipartite Settlement was entered on 23.02.2015. The benefits of the 10th Bipartite

Settlement was to be implemented for all cadres of employees with retrospective effect from 01.11.2012. But

the Office Assistants promoted from Office Attendants cadre in the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 were not given

corresponding increase in wage revision and arrears due to them. For many of them, the revised salary in the

month of August 2015 as per 10th bipartite settlement was lower than the salary they got in the month of July,

2015 as per 9th bipartite settlement.

By the respondent/the members of claimant unions have been granted/paid certain amount (whose name finds place in

Annexure No. 1) towards their wages /salary.

Moreover the said payment made by the respondent without, any demand made on behalf of the members of the

claimant unions and there is no misrepresentation or any action on the part of the members claimant union on the

basis of which the said amount paid to them, which is sought to be recovered by the respondent, as excess amount

wrongly paid to them.

Thus question to be considered, whether in view of the above said factual background the said amount can be

recovered from the members of the claimant unions (whose name finds place in Annexure No. 1) or not?.

Answer to the said question finds place in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas

Daniel (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme after placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Rafi Mahsi (supra) held as under:-

This Court in a catena of Thomas Deuses Of May, 20 decisions has consistently held that if the excess

amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation of fraud of the employee or employer by

applying a wrong principle interpretation of for calculating the pay/allowances or on the basis of a

particular interpretation rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of

emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is provide relief to the

employees from the hardship that will be cause if the recovery is ordered. This court has further held that if

in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of

what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of

4276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and

circumstances amount paid in excess of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.

The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them,

for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction,

negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the lary beneficiaries have either

retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and keep o circumstances of the case at

hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the

amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made." (13) In State of Punjab and

Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others4 wherein this court examined the validity of an order

passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess

of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court

considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer

and 4 (2015) 4 SCC 334 disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It

was held thus:

"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party. which is the weaker of the

two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be

in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of

the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer will have to be compared,

with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee

concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the

corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to

effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the

right of the employer to recover.

18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of

recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be

that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summaries

the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group Cand Group D

service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the

order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five

years, before the order of recovery is issued

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher

post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against

an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,

would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of

the employer's right to recover." (14) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us

that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been

paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment

was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the

Accountant General.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case A. Jayaraman (supra) after taking into consideration the judgment passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Rafiq Masih (supra) held as under , relevant paragraph 12 quoted as under:-

“12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of

recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be

that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise

the following few situates wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impressible in law:

(i)

Recovery from employees belongs to Class-III and class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’

service).

(ii)

Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of

recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five

years, before the order of recovery is issued.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4277

(iv) Recovery in cases where in employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher

post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work

against an interior post.

(v)

In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the

employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the

equitable balance of the employers’ s right to recover.”

Moreover I have carefully gone through the judgment cited on behalf of the respondents passed by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Sayed Abdul Qadir, the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the said judgment as the

same is not applicable to the facts of the circumstances of the present case.

Accordingly in view of the said above legal position of law on the point in issue, impugned action on the part of the

respondent/Pandyan Grama bank to recover amount already paid to the members of the claimant/union without any

fault on their part/misrepresentation is an action which is contrary to law, liable to be set aside.

Next point to be decided/adjudicated in the present case on the basis of the argument raised by learned counsel for

appellant that whether an order can passed thereby directing the respondent to inform about the details on the current

fixation of pay or the arrears of salary that they are entitled to or not?.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, admitted position which emerged out

that the said relief cannot be granted to the claimant as the same is not within the scope of reference dated 08.06.2017,

because Labour Court gets its jurisdiction from the reference and it not like the Civil Court that any one Court, which

entertains every suit. The Labour Court cannot go beyond the terms of reference nor it can travel beyond the

pleadings and arrogate the power to raise issues which the parties to the reference are precluded to raise.

Further the terms of reference determine the scope of the power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court, from case to

case, whether certain points of dispute have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication it may, while

dealing with the said points, deal with matters incidental thereto. However, such power cannot be exercised by the

Court/Tribunal so as to enlarge materially the scope of reference itself for the reason that the Court/Tribunal derives

its jurisdiction from the order of reference passed by the appropriate Government (vide Hocheif Gammon Vs.

Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa & O, AIR 1964 SC 1746) Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs The

Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. and Anr, AIR 1970 50 1356 and Mahendra L Jain & Ors. Vs. Indore Development

Authority & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 1252)

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons the present claim petition/ID case filed by claimant is partly allowed and the

respondent/Pandyan Grama Bank is restrained from recovering amount/wages already been paid to the members of

the claimant union (whose name finds place as per list is enclosed as Annexure No. 1.)

So far as the relief claimed by the claimant that the respondent be directed to inform about the details on the current

fixation of pay or the arrears of salary that they are entitled to, cannot be granted as the same is beyond the scope of

reference.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1861.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14 ½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

असम ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV ¼12@2019½ izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा. सं. ,y&12011@34@2019&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 25th September, 2024

S.O. 1861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.12/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Assam Gramin Vikash

Bank and their workmen.

[F. No. L-12011/34/2019- IR(B.I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

PRESENT: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 12 of 2019.

PARTIES :

The General Secretary, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Employee Association, Guwahati.

……………Workmen/Union.

-vrs-

Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Guwahati.

……….OP/Management.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workmen/Union :

Mr. R. Nagendranaik, Advocate

Mr. H. Nagabhushan Rao, Advocate.

For the Management.

Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate.

INDUSTRY

Assam Gramin Vikash Bank

STATE

Guwahati, Assam.

Date of Award

18-09-2024

A W A R D

Mr. Sameran Medhi, General Secretary of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Employee Association, Guwahati has

appeared for the aggrieved workmen. On repeated call at 11.30 a.m. none appeared for the Management of Assam

Gramin Vikash Bank, Guwahati. Case is fixed up today for cross examination of workman witness.

Mr. Sameran Medhi, General Secretary of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Employee Association, Guwahati

submitted an application before the Tribunal today in the form of Memo, stating therein that the Management of the

Bank had denied benefit of additional increment to the workers of the Bank which was payable to the members of the

Union as per settlement dated 29-10-1993, as available to the employees of commercial Banks. It is further stated that

during pendency of the proceeding before this Tribunal, the Management of Bank has paid the said benefit to all the

eligible members as such the issue involved in this Industrial Dispute has become infructuous and prayed for

permitting the Union to withdraw the present reference. Copy of the application has not been served upon the

Management of the Bank.

Considered the submission made by Mr. Medhi representative the aggrieved workman. Perused the order of the

reference and the schedule.

The Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued order No. L-12011/34/2019-IR (B-

I) dated 30-10-2019 and in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2A)

of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 has been pleased to refer the scheduled Industrial Dispute to this

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Guwahati in denying grant of

advance increment (Fixed Personal Pay) and computer increment with consequential benefits to Shri Adul

Mifid and 603 other workmen (list attached) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

The Case was registered on 15-11-2019, Workmen submitted Written Statement on 12-02-2020. Management

filed their Written Statement on 13-10-2020. The Case was thereafter fixed up for evidence on 19-03-2021 onwards.

At this stage the Union representative by way of filing his application stated that the claim of the aggrieved workmen

has been fulfilled and he wants to withdraw the claim against the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Guwahati. In view of

such submission, I am hold that formal adjudication of the Case is no more essential. The prayer for withdrawing the

Industrial Dispute is allowed. The reference Case is accordingly disposed of. Let a no dispute Award be drawn up in

the light of above observation.

Copies of the Award be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New

Delhi for information and notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4279

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1862.—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 (सन्िभा संख्या

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं. ,y&22012/138/2017-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 1862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D. No. 27/2018) 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 28/08/2024.

[F. No. L-22012/138/2017 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 27 OF 2018

PARTIES: Shib Pujan Gowala

Vs.

Management of Bankola Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Adv.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

29.07.2024

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-22012/138/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29.10.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. (E.C.L) by not providing

employment to the dependent of Shri Shibpujan Gwala, Ex-employee of Bankola Colliery, Bankola Area,

who was retired on the medical ground, is justified? If not, what relief his dependent is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/138/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29.10.2018 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 27 of 2018 was registered on

4280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.11.2018 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.

Shib Pujan Gowala filed his written statement on 19.12.2022 through, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala

Mazdoor Congress. The case disclosed in the written statement is that Shib Pujan Gowala was a permanent employee,

posted as an Underground Loader having UM No. 602598 at Bankola Colliery under

Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). Due to his illness, he was unable to

perform his duty and applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground according to the provisions of Clause 9.4.3

of National Coal Wage Agreement – IV (hereinafter referred to as NCWA-IV). He was asked to appear before

Medical Board of the employer company constituted for this purpose. On 26.02.1994 after examining Shib Pujan

Gowala, the Medical Boad declared him medically unfit for job. Management of ECL in the letter Ref. No.

BK:PD:15(11)/58 Yrs/79 dated 11.03.1994 terminated the service of Shib Pujan Gowala on medical ground along

with other workmen. On his termination due to physical debility, one dependent member of his family is entitled to

get employment. The management directed the workman to submit necessary document for processing the

employment of his son. Relevant documents, consisting of Attestation Form, Relationship Certificate, No Objection

by other dependent family members, Indemnity Bond were submitted before the management. A screening was

conducted at the Colliery level and the dependent son was referred for medical examination by the Initial Medical

Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as IME Board) at the Area level, which found him fit for duty.

After lapse of time the Headquarters of ECL issued a direction not to process the employment proposal of the

dependent on the ground that some complain had been received against the Medical Board, which held the medical

examination of the employee and the management decided to cancel the result of the Medical Board, which was

however not communicated to Shib Pujan Gowala. Some of the worker namely, Kishori Mohan Chakraborty and

others filed a case before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and after hearing the matter, the Hon’ble High Court

passed an order, directing the management to provide employment to the dependent of the medically unfit employee

and the management provided employment to some of the dependent of the medically unfit persons. On

19.09.1994 the Director (Personnel), Coal India Limited issued a direction to offer employment to dependent of all

those who were found medically unfit. It is contended that since Shib Pujan Gowala was declared medically unfit,

under the provision of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV his dependent should be provided with employment. According to

the union the ex-workman and his son are not having any income to maintain their livelihood, as such the son of Shib

Pujan Gowala should be provided with employment and adequate compensation should be provided to the employee

due to inordinate delay in considering prayer and all other consequential benefits.

The management of ECL contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on 19.12.2022. The

points on which the claim for employment was denied by the management inter-alia are that the provisions of Clause

9.4.3 of NCWA-IV for employment of the dependent of the disabled employee have been grossly misused by some

unscrupulous officials of ECL, unions and employees for the purpose of ensuring employment from generation to

generation in the public sector undertaking, which is a violation of the basic fabric of the Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. The result of medical examination held at Bankola Area was manipulated with vested interest

and the management of ECL was not inclined to accept the findings of the Medical Board. It was also found on

enquiry that the concerned workman was not suffering from any incurable disease, resulting in permanent incapacity

of the workman. The concerned workman is aware about such manipulation and he did not raise any dispute within a

span of two decades after such findings and stoppage of employment to his dependent son. It is contended that the

demand raised by the union for employment of the dependent of Shib Pujan Gowala on the ground of partial debility

and it was never accepted as full and final. The management of ECL had issued direction for holding fresh medical

examination of the person who had appeared before the Medical Board on earlier occasion and Shib Pujan Gowala

finally not declared as medically unfit. Consequently, the question of providing employment to his dependent son

does not arise. It is urged on behalf of the management that the claim raised by the union is absurd and the dependent

of Shib Pujan Gowala is not entitled to get any employment.

In order to establish his case in this Industrial Dispute Shib Pujan Gowala submitted his affidavit-in-chief. He

examined himself as Workman Witness – 1 and faced cross-examination. In his affidavit-in-chief the main case

projected by him is that on 26.02.1994 he was declared medically unfit for duty. Thereafter management terminated

his service on medical ground under the provision of Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV by issuing letter bearing Ref. No.

BK:PD:15(11)/58 Yrs/79 dated 11.03.1994. On the basis of the direction passed by the management on 11.03.1994,

employees declared medically unfit were asked to submit application for employment of their dependent as per

Clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV. Shib Pujan Gowala submitted an application for employment of Prakash Gwala (Yadav),

his son. Documents called for by the management were also submitted. After screening at the colliery level his son

was sent for medical examination by the IME Board and he was found fit for duty. In course of his evidence the

workman produced the following documents :

(i)

Copy of the Identity Card of Shib Pujan Gowala is produced as Exhibit W-1.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4281

(ii)

Copy of the Office Order 11.03.1994 by which he was terminated from service for being medically

unfit for duty and asked to submit application for employment of his dependent son is produced as

Exhibit W-2.

In course of cross-examination Shib Pujan Gowala admitted that the competent authority did not accept that the

recommendation of the Medical Board. He further stated that the name of his son Prakash Gwala (Yadav) is

recorded in his Service Record as a dependent and his said son was thirty years old at the time he appeared before the

Medical Board. The witness further deposed that at present his son is forty years old and denied that he is not entitled

to the benefit of employment on the ground of his voluntary retirement on medical ground.

Management examined Dibyendu Ghosh, Manager (Personnel), Bankola Colliery as Management Witness – 1.

He filed his affidavit-in-chief in support of the stand taken by the management. It is admitted that Shib Pujan Gowala

was a permanent employee of ECL. He was declared medically unfit for duty by the Medical Board on 13.03.1994

and he was terminated from service on the ground of medical unfitness. Later on, due to detection of some

malpractice the findings of the Medical Board was not approved by the higher authority and the workmen were

requested to appear for a fresh medical examination which was held on 21.01.1995, but the workman never appeared

before the said Medical Board. It is further stated that compassionate appointment under NCWA-IV is provided to the

eligible dependent of the workman found permanently incapacitated due to disease or on his death and a certificate of

such disablement or debility had to be issued by the coal company. Unscrupulous officials and unions have gravely

misused the benevolent clause for employment in public sector, violating the principles of Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. The witness stated in his affidavit-in-chief that during enquiry it was found that the concerned

workman was not suffering from any incurable disease resulting in permanent incapacity to work and the union and

the workman fully aware about such manipulation, did not raise any Industrial Dispute for more than two decades.

The management denied employment to the dependent of Shib Pujan Gowala on the ground of his medical debility.

The witness produced the following documents in course of evidence :

(i)

Copy of the Office Order 11.03.1994 by which Shib Pujan Gowala was terminated from service and

his work was stopped from 13.03.1994 has been produced as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Copy of the order dated 02/03.03.1994 relating to termination of service of Shib Pujan Gowala on

medical ground, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Copy of the letter dated 29.04.1994 issued by the Director (Personnel) addressed to the General Manager

of Bankola Area, as Exhibit M-3.

In cross-examination the witness admitted that by order dated 02/03.03.1994 (Exhibit M-2), the competent

authority of Bankola Area has approved termination of service of the enlisted persons including Shib Pujan Gowala

on medical ground. Management witness admitted that they have no record from which it can be made out that Shib

Pujan Gowala had made any representation before the company for employment of his dependent on the ground that

he had been declared medically unfit. The witness further stated that the chairman of the Medical Board was

competent to declare somebody as medically unfit but he was unable to state that on whose recommendation Shib

Pujan Gowala and other persons were declared medically unfit. It transpires from the evidence of MW-1 that the

General Manager of Bankola Area had requested to inform the Director (Personnel) if service of the employees,

declared unfit by the said Medical Board had been terminated and whether the cases for employment of their

dependent have been processed. The witness failed to produce any document or copy of the letter to show that Shib

Pujan Gowala was asked to appear before any fresh Medical Board thereafter. It also appears that no letter was issued

to Shib Pujan Gowala asking him to join his service on the ground that the decision of Medical Board declaring him

unfit was incorrect and improper. The management witness stated that no Initial Medical Examination of any

dependent was held for providing employment.

The sole question formulated for adjudication is whether it is justified and proper in providing employment to

the dependent of Shib Pujan Gowala on his retirement on medical ground. If not, what relief the dependent is entitled

to?

10. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative for the aggrieved workman, in his argument submitted that the

Medical Board examined Shib Pujan Gowala on 26.02.1994 and declared him unfit for duty according to the

provisions of Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV. At the relevant time the workman was fifty-six years of age and had four

years left in service for his superannuation. By letter dated 11.03.1994 (Exhibit W-2) Shib Pujan Gowala, whose

name appeared against serial no. 16 of the Office Order, was declared medically unfit for duty on debility ground and

was stopped from duty w.e.f. 13.03.1994. Relying upon Exhibit M-2, a letter dated 02/03.03.1994 issued by the

Personnel Manager (Incharge), Bankola Area it is argued that the service of Shib Pujan Gowala was terminated and

the same was approved by the competent authority. It is argued that though the management has taken a plea that

there was manipulation in the findings of the Medical Board, the same was not accepted by the company, no letter

was issued to the terminated workman, informing him about the decision of management, any subsequent medical

examination or asking him to resume office by setting aside or recalling the order of termination approved by the

competent authority. Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued that some of the employees who were declared medically unfit and

4282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

no employment was provided to their dependents had preferred Writ Petition bearing No. 23 of 1996 before the

Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that :

“……… the adverse vigilance report does not stand in the way in giving suitable employment to the

petitioners dependent, as the petitioners were declared medically unfit. In the event the petitioner’s

dependants are found eligible their cases shall be considered for employment in the suitable post.

Therefore I direct that the respondents and / or each of them to take steps with regard to employment of the

respective petitioners’ defendant in terms of 9.4.3 of the said Agreement. ………”

It is further argued on behalf of the workman that the findings of the Medical Board by which Shib Pujan

Gowala was declared medically unfit for duty has not been set aside by subsequent order. Therefore, according to the

provisions of Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV, which was applicable to the workman until coming into force of

NCWA-V, signed by the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry on 19.01.1996, entitles Prakash Gwala

(Yadav), the dependent son to be considered for employment.

11.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the Medical Board, which was

functioning in connivence of the union and workman, declared several workmen medically unfit for duty, despite the

fact that they were not suffering for debilitating disease. The Office Order dated 11.03.1994 by which Shib Pujan

Gowala was declared medically unfit for duty was stopped from duty w.e.f. 13.03.1994, as they had proceeded on

leave and no order of termination was issued to Shib Pujan Gowala. The management by confidential enquiry found

that good number of persons were declared medically unfit by the Medical Board on 26.02.1994 and wanted to know

if the service of such persons were already terminated and employment of the dependents were processed. The

General Manager of Bankola Area was also requested to ensure that no employment of the dependent was processed

or forwarded till the same was approved by the Director (Personnel) (Exhibit M-3). In respect of the direction passed

by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the Writ Petition to give suitable employment to the dependent of the

employee found medically unfit, it is argued that the present petitioner did not approach the Hon’ble High Court and

the management of the company had no responsibility to consider his case for employment of his dependent

according to the provisions of NCWA-IV. It is vehemently argued by Mr. P. K. Das that after long lapse of twenty

years Shib Pujan Gowala had approached the Industrial Tribunal, raising a dispute, which is not bona fide and his

prayer for employment to his dependent is not sustainable.

12.

I have considered the argument advanced by both the parties and the evidence on record. The admitted case is

that Shib Pujan Gowala was a permanent employee of Bankola Colliery, who applied for voluntary retirement on

medical ground. His prayer had been considered and the Disability Medical Board of the company setup for the

purpose, held medical examination on 26.02.1994 and found Shib Pujan Gowala medically unfit for duty according to

Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV. The Office Order dated 11.03.1994 (Exhibit W-2) was issued by the Agent of Bankola

Colliery on the basis of letter No. BA/PD/A-II(28)/632 dated 02/03.03.1994 of Personnel Manager (Incharge) of

Bankola Area. On the basis of such order the duty of concerned workman was stopped from 13.03.1994. It transpires

from the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence of the workman as well as management that till date the

provisions of Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV has not been complied by the management of the company and

dependent of the concerned employee was not provided with employment.

13.

Learned advocate for the management of ECL contended that the Chairman of the Medical Board is competent

to certify that the employee is medically unfit on the ground of debility but in the instant case no such certificate has

been issued. In my considered view it goes without saying that the management of the company having issued office

order dated 11.03.1994 on the basis of approval of the competent authority for termination of service of the enlisted

employees is presumed to have taken into the consideration the relevant report of the Medical Board, authorized to

certify such medical debility or disablement. The management of the company has produced a copy of letter dated

02.03.1994 issued by Personnel Manager (Incharge) of Bankola Area, informing the Agent of Bankola Colliery

regarding termination of service of several employees of the company on medical ground. The said letter dated

02/03.03.1994 (Exhibit M-2) precedes the letter bearing No. ECL/HQ/D(P)/02/1935 dated 29.04.1994 issued by the

Director (Personnel) addressed to the General Manager of Bankola Area, wanting to know if the service of the

employees declared unfit by the Medical Board have been terminated. It was also directed that that no employment

should be processed till the same was approved by the Director (Personnel). At this juncture it may be safely be

deduced that the termination process had already been made by issuing the Office Order dated 11.03.1994, which in

clear terms referred to letter Ref. No. BA/PD/A-II(28)/632 dated 02/03.03.1994 of Personnel Manager (Incharge) of

Bankola Area, disclosing approval of termination of employees. There is no case of the management that any order

was issued by the management for setting aside or revoking its office order dated 11.03.1994, based on the Medical

Board’s findings or asking them to resume their duty from any particular date. The management led no evidence to

prove that Shib Pujan Gowala was asked to appear before any Medical Board constituted on 21.01.1995 for re-

assessment of his medical condition and extent of his debility. Due to non-fulfilment of such responsibility the

management is duty bound under the provisions of Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV to consider the claim for

employment of the dependent son of Shib Pujan Gowala. In the instant case Shib Pujan Gowala has not produced any

document to show that any application was made by him before the management to provide employment to his

dependent son, Prakash Gwala (Yadav). The stand taken by the management is not justified. Therefore, the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4283

management of ECL is directed to process the prayer for employment of the dependent son of Shib Pujan Gowala

within a period of one month from the date of communication of the Award in accordance with the provisions of

NCWA-IV, providing full opportunity to the party to place all materials and communicate their decision to Shib Pujan

Gowala within a fortnight thereafter. In default the management of the company shall be liable to compensate Shib

Pujan Gowala by paying him a sum equivalent to his wages and all consequential benefits which would have fallen

due in favour of the employee from 13.03.1994 till the date of his superannuation, had he not been terminated from

his service by the office order dated 11.03.1994. The compensation amount shall be paid within a period of one (1)

month from the date of default in providing the employment to the dependent. Any delay in paying such

compensation will be accompanied by an interest of nine percent (9%) per annum on the sum till repayment. The

Industrial Dispute is accordingly allowed in favour of the workman on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed in favour of Shib Pujan Gowala on contest. The management of Bankola

Colliery of ECL is directed to process the employment proposal of the dependent son of Shib Pujan Gowala under the

provision of Clause 9.4.3 (ii) of NCWA-IV and communicate the decision to Shib Pujan Gowala within a fortnight. In

default of providing employment to the dependent son (Prakash Gwala (Yadav)) of the employee the management

shall compensate Shib Pujan Gowala by paying him a sum equivalent to his wages and all consequential benefits from

13.03.1994 till the date of his superannuation, as if Shib Pujan Gowala was not terminated from his service on the

ground of his debility. The compensation amount shall be paid within a month from the default of providing the

employment to the dependent. Any delay in paying such compensation shall accrue an interest of nine percent (9%)

per annum on the sum till payment is made. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of

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

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1863.—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 (सन्िभा संख्या

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं. ,y&22012/50/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 1863.—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. 36/2018) 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 28/08/2024

[F. No. L-22012/50/2018-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. 36 OF 2018

PARTIES:

Abhijit Bouri

Vs.

4284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management of B.M.P. Group 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.

Dated:

21.08.2024

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-22012/50/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 13.11.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of B.M.P. Group under Sodepur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Patmohna Colliery under Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL in

dismissing Shri Avijit Bouri, U.G.Loader w.e.f. 12/16.12.98 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to and from which date? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/50/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 13.11.2018 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 36 of 2018 was registered

03.12.2018 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.

The aggrieved workman filed his written statement on 28.10.2022 and the management of the employer

company contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on 02.01.2023. In gist, the fact of the case

of the workman represented by Koyala Mazdoor Congress is that, Abhijit Bouri, an Underground Loader, bearing

UM No. 814898 was a permanent employee of the company, posted at Patmohana Colliery under Sodepur Area of

Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). The workman was absent from duty from 04.02.1998 to

15.10.1998, for a period of eight months and ten days due to illness. The management of the employer company

issued a Charge Sheet against the workman for his unauthorized absence to which Abhijit Bouri submitted his reply,

requesting the company to permit him to join his duty.

Without issuing any Notice of enquiry, the employer company initiated a domestic enquiry against him, of

which he had no knowledge. The workman was not provided with any opportunity to represent his case or to take the

assistance of any co-worker. The Enquiry Proceeding was concluded ex-parte and the order of dismissal was issued

against him bearing Ref. No. BMP/C-6/12-A/1009 dated 12/16.12.1998.

The grievance of the workman is that he had to reside at Satgram Bograchetti, which is far away from his place

of duty at Patmohna Colliery. No Notice of enquiry was sent to his home address, as a result workman could not

attend the enquiry. No 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman to provide him an opportunity to defend his

case. In the Charge Sheet there is no charge of habitual absence but the management had taken into consideration

such charge in the course of enquiry without any notice to the workman. The workman submitted mercy petitions for

his reinstatement but the management did not consider the same. In the light of Memorandum of Settlement reached

before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on 22.05.2007, it had been agreed between the

management and the functioning unions of ECL that mercy petitions of the dismissed employees would be considered

if the period of absence was up to nine months and at the relevant time, the workman was within forty-five years of

age.

Further case of the workman is that in similar situation, in the case of Damu Dakua of Khas Kajora Colliery of

ECL and Bagia Nayak of Chora Colliery of ECL, the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, directed the management to

follow the order of the Coal India Limited, regarding issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice. According to the workman

the enquiry proceeding resulting in his dismissal is illegal and unjust as the Enquiry Officer had filled up printed form

in the guise of an enquiry. The punishment of dismissal imposed against the workman is disproportionate to the

charge and the workman prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal, reinstatement in service and full back wages

with all other consequential benefits.

The management of BMP Group of ECL in their written statement urged that Abhijit Bouri, an Underground

Loader at Patmohna Colliery had remained absent from his duty from 04.02.1998 without any authorization and a

Charge Sheet dated 15.10.1998 was issued under Section 17(i)(n) of Model Standing Order. The workman failed to

submit any reply to the Charge Sheet, giving rise to a domestic enquiry. An Enquiry Officer was duly appointed who

held enquiry but the workman did not participate. The charge against the workman was established and on the basis of

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4285

Enquiry Report and past conduct of the workman an order of dismissal from service was issued bearing Ref. No.

BMP/C-6/12-A/1009 dated 12/16.12.1998. It is asserted by the management that the punishment is proportionate to

the charge as the workman never informed the management about his absence from duty due to his alleged illness. It

is further stated that if the Tribunal find that the enquiry was unfair, in that event the management may be given an

opportunity to establish the charge by adducing independent proof and evidence.

In order to substantiate his case Abhijit Bouri filed an affidavit-in-chief, reiterating his case in the written

statement. He admitted having received the Charge Sheet and in paragraph – 4 of his affidavit-in-chief he stated

that he replied to the Charge Sheet and requested the management to allow him to join his duty. He could not attend

duty due to his illness and averred that he did not receive any Notice of enquiry for which he could not participate in

the enquiry proceeding and the management without issuing any 2^nd Show Cause Notice illegally dismissed him from

service. It is asserted that he is not a habitual absentee and no Charge Sheet for habitual absence was issued against

him. In the affidavit-in-chief the workman stated that his residence was far away from Patmohana Colliery for which

he requested the management for his transfer but his request was not considered as a result he faced problem in

attending his duty. The workman also stated that he filed mercy petition on 14.02.2012 and 02.03.2012 but the

management did not consider the same in accordance with the terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007.

Abhijit Bouri in course of his examination as Workman Witness – 1 produced a copy of the Charge Sheet dated

15.10.1998, which has been marked as Exhibit W-1, a copy of the letter of dismissal dated 12/16.12.1998, as Exhibit

W-2, and copies of the Mercy Petitions dated 14.02.2012 and 02.03.2012 as Exhibit W-3 and W-4 respectively.

In his cross-examination the workman witness stated that though he faced difficulty in travelling from Bogra

Village to Patmohana Colliery for attending duty he did not apply before the employer company for providing him

with quarters at Patmohana. He also failed to produce any application seeking transfer to some other place. The

workman denied that he intentionally absented from duty from 04.02.1998 to 15.10.1998. In course of cross-

examination the witness admitted that he did not inform the employer company the reason for his absence from duty.

Mr. Rahul Panwar, Assistant Manager (P/HR) of BMP Group filed an affidavit-in-chief and was examined as

Management Witness – 1. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that the workman did not submit any reply to the

Charge Sheet for which a domestic enquiry was held. The charge of misconduct was established during the enquiry

proceeding, which took place ex-parte. It transpires from the contents of his affidavit-in-chief that the Disciplinary

Authority passed an order of dismissal after considering the enquiry proceeding and past conduct of the workman. It

is urged that the dismissal of the workman is proper and justified. The management witness has produced the

following documents :

(i)

A copy of the Charge Sheet dated 15.10.1998 has been produced as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

A copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 18.11.1998, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

A copy of the Enquiry proceeding, in five pages, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

A copy of the letter dated 07/08.12.1998 issued by the Chief General Manager of Sodepur Area to the

Agent of BMP Group regarding dismissal of Abhijit Bouri, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

A copy of the letter of dismissal of Abhijit Bouri dated 12/16.12.1998, as Exhibit M-5.

The witness stated that he had no document relating to appointment of the Enquiry Officer, nor does he know

the name of the Enquiry Officer, who issued the Notice of enquiry.

10.

In his cross-examination the management admitted that he was unable to produce any record relating to

previous punishment of Abhijit Bouri in course of his service. He also admitted that the Enquiry Proceeding was

prepared in the printed Form and that there is no record to show that the Notice of enquiry was served upon the

workman before initiating the enquiry proceeding. The management witness denied that the enquiry initiated against

the workman was illegal or that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge. The witness further

admitted that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman and the direction of the Coal India Limited as

well as the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were not complied.

11.

The crux of the issue which emerges for consideration is whether the dismissal of Abhijit Bouri from service

w.e.f. 16.12.1998 is justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to.

12.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, on behalf of the dismissed workman draw my attention to the evidence of MW-1 that the

enquiry was held without ensuring the service of Notice to the workman and that the management failed to produce

any letter of appointment of the Enquiry Officer and was unable to identify who the Enquiry Officer was. It is argued

that the workman had no opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him and the entire enquiry proceeding is a

gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the Enquiry Report has been submitted in a filled

up pro forma without recording of statements of the management witness in first person. The union representative

vehemently argued that there was serious miscarriage of justice by not issuing the 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the

workman even after conclusion of an ex-parte enquiry proceeding, especially when the Disciplinary Authority and

Enquiry Officer were not the same person. Mr. Kumar placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

4286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], which laid

down 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.”

13.

It is further argued by the union representative that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India was adopted by the Coal India Limited on issuing Circular bearing No. CIL C-5A(vi)/50774/28 dated

12.05.1994 and directed its subsidiaries that a 2^nd Show Cause Notice is to be issued to the workman after enquiry

proceeding in order to give opportunity to meet the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Rakesh Kumar referred to the

Mercy Petitions filed by the workman, which have been marked as Exhibit W-3 and W-4. It is urged that the

management did not consider the mercy petition though the period of his absence was only eight months and ten days,

which is less than nine months and at the relevant time his age was less than forty-five years. It is submitted that the

management of ECL and all functioning unions have executed a Memorandum of Settlement before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol, agreeing to take into consideration such cases of absence.

14.

In reply, Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the workman has been

dismissed for his unauthorized absence from duty for over eight months, without any intimation to the employer

company. It is submitted that though the workman denied having received any Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry, in

his affidavit-in-chief as well as his evidence the workman claimed to have replied to the Charge Sheet which goes to

establishment that he has received the Charge Sheet but did not participate in the enquiry proceeding.

15.

Learned advocate for ECL however, fairly admitted that the management is not in a position to prove that the

Notice of enquiry was served upon the workman before the enquiry proceeding commenced and did not dispute that

no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was served upon the workman before his dismissal. The management did not respond to

the contention that the mercy petitions of the workman were not considered by the management in compliance with

the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007. It is submitted that the management may be

granted an opportunity to review their decision in consequence of the enquiry proceeding.

16. I have considered the rival arguments in the light of the materials on record. Admittedly Abhijit Bouri remained

absent from his duty for over eight months without any authorization and has grossly misused his privilege of

working under the management of ECL. There are no qualms that a Charge Sheet for unauthorized absent was issued

to the workman and he has received the same. The workman has failed to produce any reply to the Charge Sheet.

Therefore, no material is forthcoming to support the claim of the workman that due to his illness he was unable to

attend his duty. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the situation was rife to initiate a

domestic enquiry against the workman for his misconduct and violation of standing order. The pre-condition of

starting an enquiry proceeding is that the competent authority has to appoint an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry

Officer is duty bund to ensure service of Notice of enquiry upon the charged employee. The management witness in

his cross-examination stated that there was no record to show that the Notice of enquiry was served upon the

workman before initiating the enquiry proceeding. On a perusal of the enquiry proceeding (Exhibit M-3), it appears

that the enquiry proceeding was recorded in a printed Form by filing up the blanks which also contain a statement that

charge was read over and explained in Bengali and Hindi. In fact, the workman did not appear and there is no reason

to read out the charge. There is no whisper in the Enquiry Proceeding that the Notice of enquiry was served upon the

workman. I find that Mr. Kanailal Pan, Mr. Mangalmoy Sarkar and Mr. Goutam Banerjee were examined as

Management Representatives but their statements have not been recorded in the first person. On the other hand, the

statements are in the form of reporting by the Enquiry Officer himself.

17.

It is an admitted fact that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman before reaching a conclusion

that his misconduct was grave enough to attract the punishment of dismissal. In this context it is worthwhile to rely

upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd.

Ramzan Khan (Supra.). The principle laid down was also to be followed by the Coal India Limited, which issued a

Circular bearing No. CIL C-5A(vi)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994, directing all its subsidiaries to issue 2^nd Show Cause

Notice to the employees before taking the final decision of dismissal. In the instant case the workman did not get the

opportunity to submit his reply before the Disciplinary Authority, which again amounts to violation of natural justice.

The letter of dismissal bearing Ref. No. BMP/C-6/12-A/1009 dated 12/16.12.1998 was issued by the Agent of BMP

Group. I find that the Dy. CME / Agent is not the Appointing Authority of the charged employee, as such without any

specific concurrence of the General Manager of the Area, the Agent had no jurisdiction to dismiss the workman from

his service. In such view of the matter, I hold that the Agent has exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the order of

dismissal of the workman bearing Ref. No. BMP/C-6/12-A/1009 dated 12/16.12.1998, not being the Disciplinary

Authority or Appointing Authority. The procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer holding the enquiry proceeding is

‘ex facie’ illegal and violative of natural justice. The order of dismissal also appears to be disproportionate to the

charge, without any proof of habitual unauthorized absence of the workman.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4287

18.

The evidence on record clearly indicates that two mercy petitions dated 14.02.2012 and 02.03.2012 were

submitted by the dismissed workman, praying for allowing him to join his duty in terms of the Memorandum of

Settlement signed by the management and union representatives on 22.05.2007. Though these petitions are submitted

long after thirteen years from the date of dismissal, the management ought to have disposed the same after

considering the facts and circumstances involved in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement.

19.

In view of my above discussion I find and held that though the workman had remained absent for a long time

and his mercy petitions were filed long after thirteen years from the date of his dismissal, the management ought to

have considered the same. The enquiry proceeding is manifestly illegal and there has been no prior service of Notice

upon the workman intimating him the date and place of holding such enquiry. Consequently, there has been violation

of principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity to the workman to represent his case. Non-issuance of 2^nd

Show Cause Notice and passing of order of dismissal by the Agent, who is neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the

Appointing Authority, I hold that the order of dismissal is illegal and is not sustainable under the law. The impugned

order of dismissal is therefore set aside. The management shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the workman

within one (1) month of communication of the Award and after considering the representation of the workman, if any,

to be submitted within fifteen (15) days, shall pass a fresh order on the subject matter and communicate the same to

the workman. In view of such facts and circumstances discussed above no order for payment of back wages is passed.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest. The impugned order of dismissal of Abhijit Bouri, bearing Ref.

No. BMP/C-6/12-A/1009 dated 12/16.12.1998, passed by the Agent of BMP Group is set aside. The management

shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the workman within one (1) month of communication of the Award and

after considering the representation of the workman, if any, to be submitted within fifteen (15) days, shall pass a fresh

order on the subject matter and communicate the same to the workman. Let an award be drawn up in light of my

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

Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1864.—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 (सन्िभा संख्या

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं. ,y&22012/43/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 1864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 09/2014) 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 28/08/2024.

[F. No. L-22012/43/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 09 OF 2014

PARTIES:

Ajit Kora

4288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vs.

Management of Gourandi Begunia 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.

Dated:

07.08.2024

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-22012/43/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2014 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Gourandi Begunia Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of Gourandi Begunia Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

in imposing a punishment of dismissal on Shri Ajit Kora, U.G. Loader w.e.f. 05.06.2007, vide order No. C-

6/36/P-852 dated 22.05.2007/05.06.2007 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to ? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/43/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 30.06.2014 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 09 of 2014 was registered on

15.07.2014 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Ajit Kora, the

dismissed workman is represented by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative. The case is fixed up today for

evidence of the workman witness for the thirtyfifth time. Workman has not appeared before this Tribunal even on a

single date.

The Management as well as union have filed written statements and the case was fixed up for evidence of

workman witness since 09.02.2016. Workman never appeared before this Tribunal for any redressal. The concerned

union representing the workman has failed to establish any communication with the workman. Considering all

aspects, I am of the view that the workman is not inclined to proceed further with this case and the same is disposed

of in the form of a No Dispute Award. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly dismissed and a No Dispute Award be

drawn up.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

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

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

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1865.—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 (सन्िभा संख्या

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं. ,y&22012/31/2021-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4289

S.O. 1865.—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. 13/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28/08/2024.

[F. No. L-22012/31/2021 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 13 OF 2021

PARTIES:

Sunil Kora

Vs.

Management of Monoharbahal Colliery of ECL and Another.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mrs. Swapna Basu, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.07.2024

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-22012/31/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 16.08.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Monoharbahal Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the Management of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Manoharbahal

Colliery under Salanpur Area in dismissing the service of Shri Sunil Kora, UG Loader, U.M. No. 110169

vide their letter dated 29-03-2008 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/31/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 16.08.2021 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 13 of 2021 was registered on

16.08.2021 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

witnesses.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative on behalf of the aggrieved workman filed a written statement on

09.11.2021. In brief, the facts leading to this Industrial Dispute as disclosed in the written statement is that Sunil Kora

was posted as an Underground Loader bearing UM No. 110169 and was a permanent employee at Monoharbahal

Colliery under Salanpur Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). His date of birth is

30.12.1969 and was appointed under ECL on 17.01.1995. Due to illness Sunil Kora could not attend his duty. A

Charge Sheet was issued to him on 13.12.2006 for his unauthorized absence from 27.01.2004. Sunil Kora replied to

the Charge Sheet, informing that due to his illness he was unable to attend duty and was under medical treatment

during this period. In support of the same he submitted his treatment papers. Instead of allowing him to join his duty

the management issued Notice for domestic enquiry on 14.02.2008, fixing 19.02.2008 for enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer held ex-parte enquiry proceeding without ensuring service of Notice upon the workman. Report of enquiry

was submitted without providing any opportunity to the workman to participate. No 2^nd Show Cause Notice was

served upon the workman and in violation to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md.

Ramzan Khan as well as Circular of the Director (P&IR) of Coal India Limited, an order of dismissal was issued

against the workman without any opportunity of submitting his representation against the findings of the Enquiry

Officer. It is contended that the Hon’ble High Court in a catena of decisions made it incumbent upon the management

4290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to issue 2^nd Show Cause Notice before awarding a punishment of dismissal. The union in support of such contention

relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Bagia Nayak Vs. Coal India Limited

and Others [W.P. No. 2217 of 1995]. It is further contended on behalf of the workman that the punishment of

dismissal of Sunil Kora is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct alleged and lighter punishment should have

been awarded. The union relied upon the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.05.2007 signed by the representative

of management of ECL and all functioning unions at ECL, wherein it had been agreed that a Mercy Appeal of the

dismissed employee would be considered, if the workman is below forty-five years of age and the period of his

absence from duty is below nine months, but in the instant case the mercy petition of the workman has not been

considered. Sunil Kora is without any employment to maintain himself and family. It has been urged that the order of

dismissal passed against the workman without service of Charge Sheet, Notice of enquiry and 2^nd Show Cause Notice

is bad in law, punishment is disproportionate to the charge and the order is liable to be set aside with direction for

reinstatement of the workman and payment of back wages and other consequential reliefs.

The management of Monoharbahal Colliery contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on

20.12.2022, wherein it is admitted that Sunil Kora was posted as Underground Loader at Monoharbahal Colliery

bearing UM No. 110169 and his date of birth is 30.12.1969. According to the management of ECL, Sunil Kora was a

habitual absentee and neglected his duty. His attendance was consecutively recorded as poor and it went down to only

forty-eight days in a particular year. The specific charge against Sunil Kora is his unauthorized absence from service

w.e.f. 27.01.2004 which resulted in issuance of Charge Sheet bearing letter No. MB/06/268 dated 13.12.2006.

Workman was asked to submit his explanation for his unauthorized absence from work within a week but he

submitted his reply only on 31.12.2007 which was not found satisfactory. Management issued Notice of enquiry

bearing Ref. No. BMC/Agent/08/1064 dated 13/14.02.2008, directing Sunil Kora to appear before the Enquiry Officer

on 19.02.2008. Reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to Sunil Kora but he did not participate in the Enquiry

Proceeding. Enquiry was held on 19.02.2008, 07.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 after issuance of Notice to Sunil Kora but

the workman did not participate nor did he make any communication with the Enquiry Officer. Finally, an ex-parte

Enquiry Proceeding was held and the charge mentioned in the Charge Sheet was established against the workman. On

the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Chief General Manager of Salanpur Area issued a letter dated 29.03.2008,

dismissing Sunil Kora from service of the company with immediate effect. According to the management the

workman not only absented in unauthorized manner but he wilfully remained absent which adversely affected the

work of the company. Management accordingly prayed for dismissing the Industrial Dispute.

In support of his case Sunil Kora examined himself as Workman Witness – 1 and filed an affidavit-in-chief. In

course of his evidence, he produced the following documents:

(i)

Copy of his Identity Card has been produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Copy of the Appointment Letter dated 16.01.1995, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

Copy of the Letter of dismissal dated 29.03.2008, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of the Mercy application dated 20.01.2020, as Exhibit W-4.

The main contention in the affidavit-in-chief is that he did not receive any Charge Sheet. No Notice of enquiry

was served upon him. the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte without ensuring service of Notice and the

management without issuing 2^nd Show Cause Notice, in violation of natural justice imposed an extreme punishment

against him, which is illegal and he should be allowed to join duty with back wages.

In course of cross-examination the workman admitted his signature on the reply to the Charge Sheet dated

13.12.2006. His signature has been marked as Exhibit M-1 and the reply submitted by him against the Charge Sheet,

has been marked as Exhibit M-1/1. The workman denied the suggestion that he remained absent from duty

intentionally till Charge Sheet was issued.

After closure of evidence of workman witness on 22.02.2023 opportunity was extended to the management of

ECL to adduce evidence and also produce their documents. Mrs. Swapna Basu, learned advocate produced Mr.

Devendra Kumar, Assistant Manager (Personnel), as Management Witness -1 but no affidavit-in-chief was filed. Mr.

Devendra Kumar was examined-in-chief on oath.

He produced the following documents :

(i)

Signature of Sunil Kora on reply to the Charge Sheet is marked as Exhibit M-1

(ii)

Copy of the Chargesheet dated 13.12.2006 has been produced as Exhibit M-1/2.

(iii)

Copy of the reply against the Charge Sheet submitted by Sunil Kora, as Exhibit M-2 and Exhibit M-1/1.

(iv)

Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 13/14.02.2008 issued to Sunil Kora fixing date for enquiry, as

Exhibit M-3.

(v)

Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 11.03.2008, as Exhibit M-4.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4291

(vi)

Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 01.03.2008, as Exhibit M-5.

(vii)

Copy of the Notice of Enquiry Proceeding in two pages, as Exhibit M-6.

(viii)

Copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 24.03.2008, as Exhibit M-7.

(ix)

Copy of the letter of dismissal dated 29.03.2008, as Exhibit M-8.

The witness was unable to give any clear answers and the case was adjourned to 17.10.2023 for further cross-

examination of the management witness. In his cross-examination the witness stated that he was not able to produce

any document to show that Notice of enquiry was served upon the dismissed workman. No evidence has been

adduced by the management witness regarding service of Notice of enquiry upon the workman. Management witness

also admitted that no 2^nd Show Cause Notice was served upon Sunil Kora and that Sunil Kora had submitted a mercy

petition. The matter was referred to the Headquarters of ECL but no reply was given to the concerned person. The

witness denied that the workman was dismissed from service by keeping him in the dark about the Departmental

Proceeding.

The moot question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the dismissal of Sunil Kora from

service on 29.03.2008 is just and legal and whether the concerned workman is entitled to any relief.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative assailing the order of dismissal argued that the management of ECL

has initiated the Departmental Proceeding against the workman without service of copy of Charge Sheet, Notice of

enquiry and 2^nd Show Cause Notice accompanied with Enquiry Proceeding. It is vehemently argued that the entire

proceeding against the workman is a manifestation of gross violation of natural justice in as much as no opportunity

was given to Sunil Kora to participate in the Enquiry Proceeding or to raise his defence. It is argued on behalf of the

dismissed workman that in his reply dated 13.12.2007 (Exhibit M-2), the workman informed that he was unable to

attend his duty from 27.01.2004 due to his illness and he was under medical treatment at Kelejora BPHC but

management initiated the Enquiry Proceeding in absence of the workman and without ensuring service of the Notice

of enquiry upon him. Mr. Rakesh Kumar placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], which laid down 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.”

It is argued that the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was resolved to be 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 2^nd Show Cause Notice had to be issued to him before taking any final decision of removing him from service.

It is submitted that in the instant case the management of ECL violated the terms of their own Circular and the

principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is argued that due to such violation of natural justice

and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, the order of dismissal, which is improper and illegal, needs

to be set aside and the workman should be reinstated in the service with full back wages.

10.

Refuting the contention of the union representative, Mrs. Swapna Basu, learned advocate for the management

argued that the union has taken a conflicting stand regarding service of Charge Sheet upon the workman. On one hand

it is stated that he did not receive Charge Sheet but Sunil Kora in his cross-examination admitted his signature on

reply to the Charge Sheet as Exhibit M-1. Learned advocate for the management referred Exhibit to M-3, M-4 and M-

5 which are notice of the enquiry, issued in the name of Sunil Kora and argued that three Notice of enquiry were

issued to the workman on 14.02.2008, 01.03.2008 and 11.03.2008 and thereby every effort was made to inform the

absentee workman to attend the Enquiry Proceeding but he did not participate in the same, being aware of the fact that

a Charge Sheet was issued against him for his habitual absence during the preceding three years and his unauthorized

absence for more than ten days. Learned advocate argued that the management after giving every opportunity to the

workman issued an order of dismissal against him for his unauthorized absence, which is a gross misconduct. It is

submitted that he is not entitled to any relief and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.

11.

I have considered the rival arguments advanced on behalf of the union and management and also examined the

materials on record and evidence adduced by both the parties. The workman initially was in a denial mode and

claimed that copy of Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry were not served upon him, thereby he did not have any

opportunity to participate in the Enquiry Proceeding. In his affidavit-in-chief Sunil Kora in paragraph-6 stated that he

did not receive the Charge Sheet issued by the management. However, he admitted that he submitted a reply against

the Charge Sheet, which has been marked as Exhibit M-1/1. The Charge Sheet produced by the management has been

marked as Exhibit M-1/2, which bears an imputation that Sunil Kora absented from duty from 27.01.2004 without any

leave or authorization and his absence amounted to misconduct under the provision of Clause 26.29 of Certified

4292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Standing Order. There is no reference to any charge under Clause 26.23 of Certified Standing Order, which relates to

‘habitual absence’. The Charge Sheet also disclosed that his service would be terminated from the date of his

unauthorized absence unless a satisfactory explanation was submitted within a week. The management of ECL has

not been able to produce document to prove that Charge Sheet was served upon the workman within time. However, a

delayed reply to the Charge Sheet by the workman dated 31.12.2007 amply proves that the workman was informed

about the charge levelled against him for his unauthorized absence. It may be gathered from the reply dated

31.12.2007 that the workman was actually absent from duty for more than four years. The ground for absence is

disclosed in his reply that he was suffering from serious disease and he was under medical treatment at Kelejora

BPHC. It can well be assumed that a person suffering from serious ailment for four years, which allegedly prevented

him from attending his work would have proceed to a higher centre for advance medical treatment. The workman did

not disclose the nature of ailment and was far short of producing medical documents in support of his ailment. Even at

this stage of the Industrial Dispute, when opportunity was given to the workman, he could not produce a single

document relating to his medical treatment. The misconduct of the workman is abjectly disapproving.

12.

Be that as it may, a misconduct however serious and grave it may be, the ultimate decision has to be arrived by

following the principle established by law. It would now be appropriate to consider the mode and manner in which the

management of ECL has delt with the charged employee before dismissing him from service. The management in

course of their evidence has produced a copy reminder of the Charge Sheet but the same bears the date of Charge

Sheet as 13.12.2006. No evidence has been adduced by the management to prove the mode in which the Notice of

enquiry dated 13/14.02.2008, 01.03.2008 and 11.03.2008 were transmitted to the workman and whether any of such

notice was served upon the addressee. Exhibit M-6 reveals that the Enquiry Proceeding was taken up on 19.02.2008,

07.03.2008 and 19.03.2008. In order dated 07.03.2008 the Enquiry Officer has stated that reply of the Charge Sheet

dated 02.01.2008 along with some treatment papers were submitted by the chargesheeted workman. No copy of reply

to the Charge Sheet dated 02.01.2008 has been produced by the management before this Tribunal. On none of the

dates fixed for enquiry the Enquiry Officer recorded his satisfaction about service of Notice of enquiry upon the

workman. While recording the statement of the Management Representative on 19.03.2008 the name of the

management representative has neither been recorded nor has he recorded the statement of M.R. in first person. In the

Enquiry Report dated 24.03.2008, produced as Exhibit M-7, the Enquiry Officer did not consider the contents of the

treatment papers admittedly been submitted by the workman along with the reply to the Charge Sheet. After

concluding the Enquiry Proceeding admittedly no 2^nd Show Cause Notice nor any copy of Enquiry Report was served

upon the workman, seeking his explanation or representation. No formal charge was framed by the Enquiry Officer

and in his report, there is no whisper as to the provision of the Clause under which the workman was found guilty.

The Enquiry Proceeding appears to be an outcome of paperwork by the management. I further find that even in the

letter of dismissal the Chief General Manager of Salanpur Area has not referred to the relevant Clause of the Certified

Standing Order under which the accused workman was found guilty.

In the instant case Mr. B. N. Pandey, Enquiry Officer and the Competent authority are different persons. As such non-

issuance of 2^nd Show Cause Notice to the workman amounted to the violation of the principles of natural justice as

well as the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others vs Mohd.

Ramzan Khan [AIR (1991) SC 471], which laid down that 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, which has been duly adopted by the

Coal India Limited in their Circular bearing No. CIL C-5A(vi)/50774/28 dated 12.05.1994.

13.

The conduct of the workman who has remained absent for more than four years from his place of duty in

unauthorized manner certainly deserves no sympathy and he has grossly abused his right contingent to service.

Despite such fact I am unable to waive the legal necessities which were required to be fulfilled by the management

before arriving at a decision of terminating the workman from his service. The procedure adopted by the management

is itself violative of the principle of natural justice and hence the same is unacceptable and the order of dismissal

dated 29.03.2008 is set aside. Sunil Kora, the dismissed workman is entitled to be reinstated in service more for the

laches on the part of the management of ECL. The workman not having rendered any service to the company for

several years and without any evidence on his part that he was not gainfully employed at any other place for his

livelihood, I am not inclined to grant him the relief of any back wages during his period of absence. The period of

absence from 27.01.2004 till the date of his joining shall be treated as dies non and he shall be entitled to the

continuity of service. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly decided in favour of the workman.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of the workman on contest. The order of dismissal of Sunil Kora

from service bearing Ref. No. C-6/36/P-2937 dated 29.03.2008 issued by the Chief General Manager of Salanpur

Area of ECL is not sustainable under the law and is set aside. the management of ECL is directed to reinstate Sunil

Kora within one (1) month from the date of communication of this Award. The workman shall not be entitled to any

back wages. The period of absence from 27.01.2004 till the date of his joining shall be treated as dies non and he shall

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4293

be entitled to continuity of service. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award

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

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1866.—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 (सन्िभा संख्या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं. ,y&22012/99/2019-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 1866.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 12/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28/08/2024

[F. No. L-22012/99/2019 – 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. 12 OF 2020

PARTIES:

Nand Kishor Rajak

(dependent son of Late Brahmadeo Rajak)

Vs.

Management of Jambad 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.

Dated:

24.07.2024

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-22012/99/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

4294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of Koyala Mazdoor Congress (HMS), Asansol for providing employment on

compassionate ground to Shri Nand Kishore Rajak S/o Late Bramhdev Rajak, Ex-Pump Khalasi of Jambad

Colliery under Kajora Area who expired on 16.7.1999, by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is justified? If so,

what relief Shri Nand Kishore Rajak S/o Late Bramhdev Rajak is entitled to and to what extent? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/99/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 06.02.2020 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 12 of 2020 was registered on

24.02.2020 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear

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

Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) contesting the Industrial Dispute,

filed their written statement on 12.09.2022.

Nand Kishor Rajak, son of the deceased employee filed his written statement on 24.01.2023 through Mr. Rakesh

Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress. The dispute in this case is that Brahmadeo Rajak was a permanent

employee of Jambad Colliery who died on 16.07.1999 in harness. Nand Kishor Rajak, the dependent son was not

provided with employment as a dependent. Whether such act on part of the management is justified and the relief to

which the dependent is entitled to. The fact of the case disclosed in the written statement of the union is that

Brahmadeo Rajak, Ex-Pump Operator, having UM No. 536566 was posted at Jambad Colliery under Kajora Area of

ECL and he died on 16.07.1999, while in the service of the company. According to the Clause 9.5.0 of National Coal

Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) applicable to the Coal Industry, one dependent of the deceased

employee is entitled to get employment. Asha Devi, wife of the deceased employee applied for providing employment

to her and submitted relevant document before the management of Jambad Colliery. She was asked to appear before

the Screening Committee of the Colliery for her employment and the employment proposal was forwarded to the

Area Office. Asha Devi was called before the Screening Committee on 08.07.2003. After her screening she was

referred before the Initial Medical Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the IME Board). The proposal of

employment of Asha Devi was forwarded to the Head Quarters of ECL. The management of ECL discouraged

employment of female dependent and the proposal for her employment was kept pending for several years. The

management of ECL persuaded Asha Devi to accept monetary compensation in lieu of employment but she did not

accept the same and instead she requested the management for employment of Nand Kishor Rajak, the dependent son.

An Industrial Dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raniganj over the claim for

employment by the dependent son. During the conciliation proceeding management agreed to process the

employment proposal of the dependent son and a Memorandum of Settlement was signed. In accordance with

such settlement Nand Kishor Rajak submitted his documents in support of his claim. He appeared before the

Screening Committee at the Colliery level. The management verified his relationship with Brahmadeo Rajak through

Police authority at his native place and after receiving the report, the committee recommended his employment.

Screening was done at Area level and he was examined by the IME Board, where he was found medically fit for

employment. The Area General Manager recommended the proposal of employment to the ECL Head Quarters.

Several quarries made by the Personnel Manager (EMPL), ECL Head Quarters, which were all complied by Nand

Kishor Rajak. After ten years the management of ECL regretted the proposal for employment of the son on the

ground that his claim for employment was made after a delay.

It is the case of the union that initially the dependent wife of the deceased employee submitted the claim for

employment after the death of her husband but the matter was kept pending. Thereafter, the dependent son applied for

employment and his subsequent application was in continuation of the earlier claim of his mother and the company

cannot regret the claim for employment on the ground that it was a delayed claim. Union asserted that the

management by not taking any decision delayed the matter for which the dependents of workman cannot suffer. The

contention of Nand Kishor Rajak is that he has no source of income for his livelihood and he is badly in need of the

employment. The union asserted that the provision for employment to the dependent is based upon the decision of the

Coal India Limited, which was adopted by the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry in NCWA and the

same cannot be treated as compassionate appointment for the dependent. It is asserted that the management is under

an obligation, be directed to provide employment to the dependent son and pay monetary compensation to the wife of

Brahmadeo Rajak from the date of death of the employee up to the date of providing employment to the dependent

son. In support of the claim for employment the union relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in

the case of Jagadish Bouri @ Madhu Bouri Vs. Union of India and Others [MAT 149 of 2024 with IA No. CAN

1 of 2024, CAN 2 of 2024], wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench had granted the prayer for employment of the

dependent son even after claim for employment was kept pending for several years.

The Agent of Jambad Colliery, representing the management of ECL, in their written statement, refuted the

claim for employment of the dependent son. It is their specific case that Nand Kishor Rajak submitted the application

for compassionate appointment on 07.11.2011. The matter was examined and the proposal for employment was

processed. The Screening committee and the IME Board held necessary screening and medical examination at the

Area level. The genuineness of relationship of the claimant with the deceased employee was also established but the

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4295

competent authority did not provide employment to the dependent son on the ground that the case is liable to be

rejected as per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Nemai Kumar Vs. CIL and Others the

claim of the dependent was rejected on the ground of delay.

According to the management more than eleven years have passed since the death of the employee and the

dependent son has submitted his application for employment after inordinate delay. It is further contended that the

compassionate employment is not a vested right and it is provided to the family of the deceased employee to tide over

the financial crisis due to sudden death of sole bread earner. In the present case the application for employment was

field after a very long time and the claim for employment would fail for such delay. In support of their contention

management of ECL relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Eastern Coalfields

Limited Vs. Anil Badyakar and Others [AIR 2009 SC 2534]. The management accordingly prayed for dismissal of

the Industrial Dispute.

On behalf of the union, Nand Kishor Rajak filed his affidavit-in-chief reiterating the facts of the case and

examined himself as Workman Witness - 1. In course of his examination-in-chief, the witness produced a letter dated

27.08.2018 by which the management regretted the proposal for employment of Nand Kishor Rajak, which has been

marked as Exhibit W-12. The witness submitted an application before the management on 20.12.2018 for

reconsidering the proposal for employment. The workman witness produced the following documents in support of

his case:

(i)

Copy of the Death Certificate of Brahmadeo Rajak is produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Copy of the Identity card of Brahmadeo Rajak, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

Copy of the Service Record Excerpt of Brahmadeo Rajak is produced as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of the letter dated 07.07.2003 issued by the Personnel Manager, Jambad Colliery addressed to Asha

Devi, as Exhibit W-4.

(v)

Copy of the letter dated 20.08.2003 issued by the Personnel Manager, Jambad Colliery for pre-

employment medical examination of Asha Devi, as Exhibit W-5

(vi)

Copy of the letter dated 21.02.2007 regarding payment of family pension, as Exhibit W-6.

(vii)

Copy of the application dated 20.01.2010 filed by Nand Kishor Rajak, claiming employment, as Exhibit

W-7.

(viii)

Copy of the letter of Nand Kishor Rajak dated 07.11.2011, filing documents, as Exhibit W-8.

(ix)

Copy of the employment proposal of Nand Kishor Rajak issued by the management of the Colliery and

forwarded to the Area Office, as Exhibit W-9.

(x)

Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 13.06.2014, as Exhibit W-10.

(xi)

Copy of the Report dated 24.02.2016 of three men committee for genuinity of relationship between Nand

Kishor Rajak and the deceased employee, as Exhibit W-11.

(xii)

Copy of the letter dated 27.08.2018 issued by the Senior Manager (Personnel) Empl/ED, regretting

employment proposal of Nand Kishor Rajak, as Exhibit W-12.

(xiii)

Copy of the letter dated 18.11.2018 issued by Agent Jambad Collery to Nand Kishor Rajak, rejecting

claim for employment as Exhibit W-13.

(xiv)

Copy of the application of Nand Kishor Rajak dated 20.12.2018 for review of the decision for providing

employment, as Exhibit W-14.

(xv)

Copy of the No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs of Brahmadeo Rajak, as Exhibit W-15.

(xvi)

Copy of the Aadhaar Card of Nand Kishor Rajak, as Exhibit W-16.

(xvii)

Copy of the Voter Identity Card of Nand Kishor Rajak, as Exhibit W-17.

In course of cross-examination the workman witness deposed that his date of birth is 10.01.1984 and he studied

up to Class – IV. At the time of his father’s death his grandfather was alive and his grandfather did not agree to the

employment of his mother, as he wanted his other son to get the employment in place of Brahmadeo Rajak. Witness

admitted that his mother did not agree to accept monetary compensation and she wanted her son to get employment.

The witness also admitted that he submitted his first application before ECL in the year 2009 after they regretted the

employment proposal of his mother. Copy of such application could not be produced by the witness.

Mr. Ramjee Tripathi, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Jambad Colliery, filed his affidavit-in-chief on behalf

of the management and was examined as Management Witness – 1. It is averred in the affidavit-in-chief that

Brahmadeo Rajak, workman of Jambad Colliery died an unnatural death on 16.07.1999 while in service. He also

4296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

stated that as per NCWA one of the eligible dependents of the family of the deceased workman is entitled to get

compassionate employment for sustaining the family. Nand Kishor Rajak submitted his application for employment

on 07.11.2011 and after examining the matter the proposal for employment was processed. The Colliery Screening

Committee held screening test on 29.01.2013 and the Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME)

was done on 03.04.2015. Subsequently, a screening was done at Area level on 29.04.2015. The relationship of the

claimant with the deceased employee was also considered on 13.03.2016. The management then declined to provide

employment on the ground that more than eleven years have passed after the death of the employee and the proposal

was regretted. The witness produced following documents in support of the management’s case :

(i)

Copy of the Death Certificate of Brahmadeo Rajak has been produced as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Copy of the Service Record Excerpt of Brahmadeo Rajak, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Copy of the application of Nand Kishor Rajak dated 07.11.2011, claiming employment, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Copy of the letter dated 11.01.2013 for screening of Nand Kishor Rajak, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Copy of the Notice dated 02.04.2015 for appearance of Nand Kishor Rajak before the IME Board, as

Exhibit M-5.

(vi)

Copy of the letter dated 27.08.2018 issued by the Senior Manager (Personnel) Empl/ED, regretting the

employment proposal of Nand Kishor Rajak, as Exhibit M-6.

(vii)

Copy of the report of pre-employment medical examination of Nand Kishor Rajak, as Exhibit M-7.

(viii)

Copy of the Internal Circular of ECL dated 14.05.2015, as Exhibit M-8.

In cross-examination the material statement made by the management witness is that the application for

employment was submitted in the year 2011, whereas his father died in the year 1999. Regarding Exhibit M-6, where

a reference is made to the case of Nemai Kumar Vs. CIL and Others, the witness responded that the Senior Manager

(Personnel) EMPL/ED has not mentioned the citation and number of the case on the basis of which the employment

proposal of Nand Kishor Rajak was regretted. The witness produced a copy of Internal Circular of ECL dated

14.05.2015, whereby a dependent is required to submit an application, claiming employment within five years from

the date of death of the workman.

10.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative, arguing the case for Nand Kishor Rajak submitted that on the

premature death of Brahmadeo Rajak, the employee, his wife Asha Devi claimed for employment as dependent

according to the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA. After Screening and IME the proposal for her employment was

forwarded to the Headquarters of ECL but no action was taken. The management tried to dissuade her from her claim

for employment and persisted her to remain content with monetary compensation. Due to such treatment by the

management of the employer company, Asha Devi was in dark regarding the fate of her employment. Nand Kishor

Rajak, the dependent son was a minor at the time of his father’s death in the year 1999. On attaining majority, when

his mother’s prayer for employment was pending final consideration, the son submitted an application claiming

employment as a dependent. The management delayed in processing the prayer for employment by several years and

ultimately on 27.08.2018 (Exhibit M-6) a regret letter was sent to Nand Kishor Rajak, rejecting his claim for

employment on the ground of delay. The union presentative vehemently argued that the management of the

company has violated the agreed terms of NCWA by not providing employment and causing suffering to the family

of the dependent. It is argued that if there was any delay, it is due to acts and omission of the management of the

company and not due to the family member of the deceased employee. Mr. Kumar argued that Asha Devi is entitled

to a monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband on 16.07.1999 till the date of employment,

provided to the dependent son. In support of his claim, a reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court

at Calcutta in the case of Jagadish Bouri @ Madhu Bouri Vs. Union of India and Others [MAT 149 of 2024 with

IA No. CAN 1 of 2024, CAN 2 of 2024].

11.

Contrary to the argument advanced by the union representative, Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the

management of ECL argued that the Tribunal has to adjudicate the scheduled dispute, which relates to the claim for

employment of Nand Kishor Rajak and not the claim for employment of Asha Devi. Referring to the evidence on

record Mr. Das submitted that it is undisputed that Brahmadeo Rajak, the father of Nand Kishor Rajak, died an

unnatural death while in service of the company. Referring to the Internal Circular of ECL dated 14.05.2015 it is

submitted that a claim for employment has to be made within five years from the date of death of the employee, but in

the instant case the application, claiming employment was submitted by Nand Kishor Rajak for the first time on

20.01.2010 (Exhibit W-7), which is eleven years after the death of his father. Learned advocate submitted that such

inordinate delay has destroyed the claim for employment of the dependent son and the company accordingly regretted

the prayer for employment on the ground of delay, which is an established principle of law and upheld by the court of

law in many cases.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4297

12.

The point for consideration at this juxtapose is whether the demand for providing employment to Nand Kishor

Rajak on compassionate ground on the death of his father on 16.07.1999 is justified and whether he is entitled to

any relief.

13.

Having considered the argument advanced by the learned advocate of ECL and the union representative and

evidence on record, it would appear from the cross-examination of Nand Kishor Rajak that his date of birth is

10.01.1984 and he was a minor at the time of his father’s death. There is no case of the workman that any application

was filed by Asha Devi before the company for maintaining the name of Nand Kishor Rajak in the live roster for

employment on his attaining majority. The contrary case of the union is that the wife applied for her own employment

in place of her husband. Nand Kishor Rajak for the first time submitted an application before the management,

claiming employment after ten and a half years from the date of death of his father. It goes without saying that Nand

Kishor Rajak has far exceeded the time, permissible for submitting the application for employment. The management

cannot be expected to speculate and presume that a son will seek employment after a such long time nor the employer

would be expected to provide employment after any duration of time.

14.

It is however absolutely inappropriate on the part of the management to remain silent regarding employment of

the wife of deceased employee, having no disqualification at the time she submitted her application. The conduct of

the officials of the management in prolonging the proceedings for employment without any promptitude does not

inspire confidence in my mind in the matter of compliance of the terms of NCWA. The Hon’ble Division Bench of

the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Jagadish Bouri @ Madhu Bouri Vs. Union of India and Others

[MAT 149 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024, CAN 2 of 2024], while examining such trend of management has

appropriately observed as follows :

“ ……. It appears that the procedure adopted by ECL, is unusually lengthy and opaque and necessary

assistance is not being provided to the illiterate, impoverished, financially weak dependants of the

deceased employee. We are of the view that the welfare measures sought to be achieved by the NCWA has

been followed more in breach than in observance. …….”

In the instant case Nand Kishor Rajak is victim of circumstances who has followed suit in claim for employment after

his mother. In the meantime, laches developed on his part due to delay and the management has taken full advantage

of the situation which could have been otherwise treated in a ‘welfare society’. In the present case I do not find merit

in the claim of the union for providing employment to the dependent son for the inordinate delay in raising the claim

for employment.

15.

In the instant case invoking the jurisdiction under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate

relief according to me which can be provided to the family of the dependent is monetary compensation to Asha Devi

from the date of death of her husband on 16.07.1999 till she attains sixty years of age. The management of the

company is directed to disburse the monetary compensation to Asha Devi on account to her husband’s untimely death

within a period of two months from the date of communication of Award. In default, the management shall be liable

to pay an interest of nine percent (9%) per annum on the accumulated sum of the monetary compensation from the

time specified. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly disposed of in part, in favour of the union.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed in part. The claim for employment of Nand Kishor Rajak as a dependent

under ECL is disallowed. The management is directed to pay the monetary compensation to Asha Devi, wife of

the deceased employee for not providing employment to the dependent family member w.e.f. 16.07.1999 till she

attained sixty years of age. The monetary compensation to be paid within two (2) months from the date of

communication of the Award. In default, the management shall be liable to pay an interest of nine percent (9%) per

annum on the accumulated sum of the monetary compensation till payment. 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, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1867.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

4298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सह -

नंबर II चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

)

dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं. ,y&23012/20/2004-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 1867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.246/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/08/2024

[F. No. L-23012/20/2004– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 246 /2005

Registered on:- 09.08.2005

Daulat Ram S/o Mani Ram C/o Shri Hem Prabh S/o Sh. Bali Ram, R/o Village Bhayarta, P.O. Chanahan, Teh. &

Distt. Mandi (HP).

….……....Workman

Versus

Bhakra Beas management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project Sundernagar Township, Distt. Mandi, (HP).

…..Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:- 15.07.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/20/2004-IR(CM-II), dated 07.07.2005, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

““Whether the demand of Shri Daulat Ram for reinstatement in the services of BBMB, Sunder Nagar is legal

and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

The brief facts, related to the case are that the construction of Beas Sutluj Link Project{hereinafter called as

BSL(P)} started in the year 1962 under Beas Control Board, which was constituted on 10.02.1961 with its

headquarter at Sundernagar and this project was under the control of Centre Government, who had been constructing,

maintaining, operating and administrating it through various Boards in different phases. After passing of Pb. Re-

Organisation Act, 1966(hereinafter called “Re-Organisation Act”) Beas Control Board was replaced by Beas

Construction Board (hereinafter called “BCB”). The workman was employed by BCB on 01.10.1971. The workman

who was employed in Beas Project(Unit-1) become the employee of Bhakra Beas Management Board(hereinafter

called as BBMB) in pursuance of proviso (1) of Section 80(3) and Section 80(5) of Re-organisation Act and the

workman become the employee of the Centre Government under the management of B.B.M.B. from 15.05.1976. The

workman has completed 240 days in every calendar year and was not interrupted till his retrenchment. The employer

made a bulk retrenchment of project employees in the year 1977 and 1978 and also in stages thereafter till 1984. The

workman was also retrenched by the employer on 29.11.1978 on account of reduction in strength due to part

completion of the BSL(P) and re-employment certificate was issued by the office of re-settlement B.S.L/B.B.M.B.

Sundernagar for the re-employment of the retrenched workmen of B.S.L.(P)(BBMB) in accordance with provision of

the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, thousands of other persons were appointed secretly by employer,

violating Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The employer is also doing unfair labour practices as

defined in Section 2(R)A of the ID Act. Management has also violated the provisions of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4299

Dispute(Central) Rule, 1957(hereinafter called “The Industrial Rules”). By filling vacant posts, the employer declared

some posts as surplus and retrenched the employees working on those posts.

It is also maintained that the present workman and other workmen have filed a Civil Writ Petition

No.403/1996, titled as Sant Ram and 87 others Vs. BBMB in the Hon’ble High Court of Shimla for their re-

employment and in the said writ petition management filed reply dated 16.04.1996 by way of affidavit and admitted

that retrenched workmen are employee of BBMB. The workmen have then withdrew the writ petition and filed civil

suits for declaring them as a retrenched workmen of BBMB before the Sub-Judge, 1^st Class, Sunder Nagar, Distt.

Mandi(HP), on 21.01.1997 and later on those suits were decided on 05.07.2002 and all plaints were returned to the

workmen to be filed before the competent authority on the basis of which the present proceedings were initiated after

referring of the dispute of workman from the Ministry of Labour on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, management filed writ

petition before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the order of Ministry on 07.07.2005 and the same

was dismissed on 07.05.2007 and Special Leave Petition filed bearing nos.16939-17007 of 2007 in Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India by the management was also dismissed on 08.07.2014. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of

the workman may kindly be allowed and workman be continued in the service of the management and be regularized

and further be given all the consequential benefits.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that workman is Ex-work charged employee of Beas

Construction Board, which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was

retrenched after completion of the work of BCB in the year 1978. The workman was paid terminal benefits i.e.

retrenchment compensation, gratuity, ex-gratia amount on account of his retrenchment from BCB as per provisions of

ID Act. It is further maintained that BCB and present management are two distinct and separate entities. It is also

maintained that construction of Beas Project was undertaken by the Punjab Govt. Irrigation Department prior to the

re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab on 01.01.1966. After re-organisation the work of BSL(P) was taken

over by the Central Govt. on behalf of partner states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. The Central Govt. constituted

BCB under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act and further stipulated that any component of Beas Project in

relation to which the construction has been completed be transferred by the Central Govt. to Bhakra Management

Board(hereinafter called as BMB) constituted under Section 79(1) of the Re-organisation Act. It is further stated

under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act that BMB would be re-named as BBMB when any component of Beas

Project was transferred under Section 80(6) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was employed by the BCB.

Thus, the workman never remained the employee of management. However, it is stated that 1093 work-charged and

12 contingent paid employees of Beas Project were sent on job order basis to Ranjit Sagar Dam, Punjab. They were

taken over by the management under the benevolent policy of the Central Govt. as Central Govt. had given directions

to BBMB to absorb these employees. The remaining work-charged employees were not entitled for the said benefit.

Even work-charged employees of the BCB had filed a petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as

Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC 440, in which their claim for absorbing them in

BBMB is not granted instead their retrenchment from BCB was upheld. Remaining averments have been denied and

it is stated that the claim of the workman is hopelessly time barred and the workman has no legal enforceable right to

claim employment in BBMB. It is prayed that claim be dismiss.

A replication was also filed by workman contravening the facts taken in written statement as reiterating the

facts as stated in claim petition.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A and has been

cross-examined by the learned law officer of management. He also placed on Discharge Certificate (Ex.AW1/A),

Identity card (Ex.AW1/B) and (Ex.AW1/C) and also school leaving certificate (Ex.AW1/D).

Moreover, no evidence has been given by the management in this case. Vide order dated 03.03.2021 the then

Presiding Officer, A.K. Singh fixed the case for filing written arguments and the case remained pending for

arguments. Even no evidence has been led by the management in this case.

While arguing the case, learned Law Officer for the management contended that initially Beas Control Board

was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from

Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, BMB

was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself.

Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be

re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the

BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project have been so transferred. All the projects under

BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in 1984. Present workman was employed as work

charged employee on 01.10.1971 and was retrenched on 29.11.1978. All similar work charged employees including

the present workman was engaged by the BCB which ceased to exist in the year 1984 therefore, the workmen cannot

be termed as the employees of the BBMB because there does not exist BCB which was his parent department.

Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr.,

4300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1979 SCC 440 has held that work charged employees were bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected by

the management and also by the award 2-C of the year 1971 before Sh. H.R. Sodhi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-

Chandigarh between workman and employees of the Beas Construction Board, Sunder Nagar and published in the

gazette on 15.06.1974 of the Govt. of India.

So far as the claim of the workman regarding re-employment after retrenchment on 29.11.1978 is concerned,

workman was not entitled for re-instatement as in a case under reference no.2-C of 1971 decided by Sh. H.R. Sodhi,

the then Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh, it was held that management in order to establish an industrial peace

and to secure the work charge employees after completing the work can engage after completion of project at any

time within 6 months for the maintenance of staff for project of any work if it is required to those work charged

employees in order to seniority who have put 10 years of service. The relevant portion of para is reproduced as below:

“It is accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six

months thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be

recruited or transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government,

the offer shall first be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10

years’ continuous service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs

subject to the medical fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will

not, however, be disturbed to their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected.“

10.

Because the present workman had not completed 10 years of service so he is not entitled for re-employment.

Learned representative for the management further contended that in this case workman was retrenched on

29.11.1978 after receiving due retrenchment compensation etc. and now he is claiming re-employment under Section

25-H of the Act and his claim is hopelessly time barred as he has filed the present claim petition on 20.07.2005. To

support this view he has placed reliance in the case titled as Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal,

AIR 2006, Supreme Court 2682, wherein in identical matters Court has not entertained writ petition due to inordinate

delay. In the present case there is a delay of about 27 years. He also relied upon the case titled as Ram Chand Vs. The

BBMB and another, CWP no.2787 of 2018, decided on 03.12.2018(Annexure R-4) where the Hon’ble Himachal

Pradesh High Court has held that dispute if any ought to be raised within a reasonable period as the ID Act does not

prescribed time limit for referring such dispute. In the present case workman was engaged as Beldar in the year 1971

and was discharged on 29.11.1978 and he has sought re-employment after 34 years which was held to be highly time

barred. Thus, he contended that claim of workman is time barred. Workman was discharged on 29.11.1978 and

thereafter he filed present claim before the Labour Conciliation Officer.

11.

While arguing the case, learned AR for the workman contended that in this case workman was discharged on

29.11.1978 due to reduction in strength and he was issued discharge certificate by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar. He referred to Section 25-H of the ID Act which provides re-employment of retrenched workman. He

further has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of the workman. He was required to be adjust in

view of under Section 25-G of the Act by the management Discharge Certificate was issued by the Management. He

was not given any employment. While arguing further, learned AR for the workman referred to Rule 77 and 78 of the

Industrial Dispute Central Rule 1957(hereinafter called Industrial Rule). Rule 77 provides maintenance of seniority

list of workman and it states that before any worker is retrenched the appellant-establishment is required to place on

the notice board the seniority list of all the workmen who were to be retrenched but nothing has been done in this

regard before retrenchment of the present worker. She also referred to Rule 78 which provides that as and when any

vacancy incurred then retrenched workmen were required to be given registered notice but nothing was done by the

management. Moreover, question of limitation does not arise as no limitation period has been prescribed under the

Act for seeking relief under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act. Learned AR for the workman

further contended that even reference made by the Government dated 07.07.2005 was challenged by the management

in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Writ Petition No.3100 of 2006 and their writ petition was

dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 07.05.2007. Even SLP filed against the order dated 07.05.2007 was upheld

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.16979/2007 dated 08.07.2014.

12.

I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman and also for the

management.

13.

The management relied upon mainly in this case on the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another(supra),

which is very material for decision of this case. The said judgment deals with two types of petitioners. First type of

petitioners were employed by the BCB on purely temporary basis and they had also given written undertaking

confirming the term of their appointment. The BCB appointed the first type of petitioners on ad hoc basis with a clear

understanding that they will have no right to be retained in service after the completion of the Beas Project. They are

Engineers, Section Officer, Accounts Clerk, Teacher etc. and they have claimed their parity with other employees

who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Governments and who were serving on deputation

in connection with the works of the BhakraNangal Scheme.

14.

In respect of these employees, it was held as follow:-

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4301

“To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their

conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled

to the benefit of any of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may

make representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this

Court to grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the

aforesaid rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi-

permanent service under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be

transferred to the services of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas

Management Board. Lastly, the proposed retrenchment of the

petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and distinct classes.”

15.

As regards, second type of employees i.e. work charged employees the judgment deals in Para 41, 42, 43, 44,

45, 46 and 47 which read as follow:-

“41. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including

the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees

who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the

estimated cost of the work.

42. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The

work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the

execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically

come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do

not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or

any benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.

43. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and

are entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow

from that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment9 and

modification. The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant

like the other petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of

compensatory benefits.

44. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were

made to the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of 'last

come, first go' has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact

the work-charged employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section

25J(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have

effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing

orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.

45. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them,

about 26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the

workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12

unions of which the work-charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation

proceedings. By reason of section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the

course of a conciliation proceeding is binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to

which the dispute relates, whether they were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In

Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. JatinChakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not

even necessary, in order to bind the work men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show

that they belonged to the union which took part in the conciliation proceedings, since the policy

underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended operation to such settlements. In the instant case,

all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the work-charged establishment were parties to the

conciliation proceedings. The settlement will therefore bind all the work-charged employees.

46. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial

Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-

charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the

management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which

the workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the

aforesaid award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees,

involving a burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.

4302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

47. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected

between them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and

have accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974 they are not entitled to any rights

apart from those flowing from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. SLP No.1246 of 1979 which is

filed to challenge the Award and C.M.P. No.2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of

over four and half years caused in filing the SLP shall have to be dismissed.”

16.

Thus, from the above observation of Supreme Court it is clear that work charged employees are engaged on a

temporary basis and their appointments are made for the specified work and their service comes to an end on the

completion of work for the sole purpose of which they are employed.

17.

Para 43 provides that work charged employees are industrial worker and entitled to the benefit of the provisions

contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even contracts

of employment are open to adjustment and modification. Para 45 as reproduced above further provides that in the

conciliation proceeding it has been held that there were about 36000 work charged employees working on Beas

Project out of them 26000 has already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the

workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central),

New Delhi under Section 12 of the ID Act. The said settlement is binding on all the work charge employees who are

working in the establishment to which the dispute relates. In para 46 it is further stated that apart from the settlement

in the conciliation proceeding an award was made by the CGIT Chandigarh in reference no.2-C in an industrial

dispute between the work charged employee of the Beas Sutlej Project, Sundernagar with which we are concerned

and the management. A consent formula was evolved to which the workmen virtually agreed. In the last para 47 itself

specifically stated that work charged employees are bound by the settlement and award May 15, 1974 and they were

entitled to rights those flowing from the settlement and award.

18.

So far as the settlement executed between the work charged employees and management through unions, the

same has not been produced by the management despite opportunity was given to file the same. Thus, adverse

interference can be drawn against them. To support this view, reliance can be placed to the judgment of Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court in case held as2001(3) RSJ 382 Ambika Parashad Versus Punjab Urban Planning

and Development Authority Chandigarh and Another wherein it has been held “that respondent has not

produced record in the Labour Court to prove that Workman has not completed 240 days of service though

application was submitted by the Workman for production of record held that a person in possession of the

best evidence has to produce the same, otherwise adverse inference can be drawn against the said party”. In

this case also as per order dated 01.05.2024 of this Tribunal. Respondent were asked to produce the settlement arrived

between the 12 union of the work charged employee and management under Section 12 of ID Act before the Regional

Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and all the work charged employee were bound by the said settlement. However,

despite of availing 2-3 opportunities i.e. 20.05.2024, 20.06.2024 and 09.07.2024 the said policy was not produced and

as such adverse inference can be drawn against the management in view of the above law.

19.

As regards award passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, the relevant claim of the work

charged employees was regarding their regularization services and the finding given by the Tribunal is as follow:-

“Regulation of Services of the workcharged employees.

It is an un-disputed fact that the entire strength of labour as employed in the Project is

workcharged. The institution of workcharged establishment is not only necessary but sometime

unavoidable. These workmen are engaged on temporary basis and their services are utilized for the

execution of a specified work for which they may be suited. From the very nature of employment the

services of such workman automatically come to an end on the completion of the work. A workcharged

employee does not get any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor is he benefitted by the employees

state Insurance Scheme. He does not indeed enjoy any retiral benefits. Before partition of the country in

1947 it was not usual to have project, construction of which required a number of years to complete but

after constituting ourselves into a democratic Republic and the Government having taken in hand five

year plans for development of the country there are various schemes involving the construction of works

for a period extending over several years as is the case of the instant Project. It commenced in 1962 and

more than 12 years having passed the completion might take another few years. In such situation it

seems reasonable and fair that a workman who has, like a regular employee, spent the part of his life

ranging from 5-10 years upto 20 year, should not be thrown on the road and must be assured some

benefits as are available to regular staff. The other aspect of the matter is that the employer could not

compelled to retain workcharged employees after the work for which the latter had been engaged is

completed, as after all, he was employed before a particular job and the employer, be it the Government

or any of its public undertakings, cannot taken upon itself the responsibility of that workman for all time

to come. It can be well argued that such a workmen should feel happy and content that instead of

remaining un-employed be got employment for a long time.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4303

To assure Industrial peace and economic justice to such class of workmen some balance has

in my opinion to be stuck between the two extremes. It is the duty of the State under the Directive

Principles enunciated in part 4 of the constitution to secure and protect that social order in which

justice, social and economic could be had by all institutions of national life. I fell that it is equally the

duty of an adjudicator of industrial disputes charged with the duty of administering social justice to be

guided by the fundamentals contained in this chapter though he has to bear In mind the limits of the

economic capacity of the employer and Endeavour must have ever be made to secure work for every

citizen do in our present economy. It is not possible to immediately achieve that object. The workman

employed by the respondent management are drawn from different states out of which I am informed

about 8/10 thousands are from Punjab about 22000 from Himachal Pradesh and the remaining from the

states of Rajasthan and Haryana. Some of the workmen are from U.P and Bihar and a handful from

Kerala. The board hasby and large been consistently following the Punjab pattern in the matter of wage

structure, revision thereof from time to time and grant of dearness allowance. It is only with regard to

categories not appearing in the common Schedule of Rates prepared by the erstwhile United State of

Punjab that the board took its independence decisions on the recommendations of its own standing

committee.Even Himachal Pradesh Government generally followed the Punjab policy.The state

government of Punjab in its wisdom, and I should say rightly has declared that the services of work

charged employees in building and roads branch who had worked for 10 years or more would stand

regularized in the sense that the workmen would be treated at par with those in the regular service of the

state government.The benefit of this announcement was afterwards extended to the employees of its

irrigation branch as well at the workman who held from Punjab continue to stay in their parents state

the services of those who had put in 10 years or more would have been regularized the respondent

management too in pursuance of its policy to follow the Punjab pattern might have regularized the

services of at least of those workmen who had come from Punjab but any such course would have

created awkward situation as the workmen from other States could not be discriminated in this

respect.Moreover financial implications and other complications are involved.

In such circumstances stated aboveI would have directed that the services of those of the

workman who have been continuously employed for more than 10 years should be regularized. But the

other problems arising from such a direction including financial impact on the employer cannot be lost

sight of The Central Government through the board is only managing on behalf of the state of Punjab,

Rajasthan Haryana and Himachal Pradesh who are partners in the venture.Several aspects of the

question were discussed with the workmen and the management in the course of arguments and a

formula evolved to which the workman virtually agreed and I feel that such a solution as stated

hereunder is quite just to all the parties provided it is work out, honestly stated. No doubt,what is referred

to me is the matter of regularization of the services of work charge employees, but the directions that I

am issuing in my opinion, amount to only granting lesser relief than claimed by the workmen. The

management can also have no grievance if it wants industrial peace and is anxious to secure

employment to the work-charged employees after the completion of the work. It is accordingly, directed

that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six months thereof for the

maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or transferred from

any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first be made to

the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous service or

more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical fitness

of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected. The workmen have expressed an apprehension

that near the completion of the Project trades of some of them might be changed so that it could be said

that a suitable workman needed for a particular job was not available and an outsider was therefore

necessary to be employed. To protect the workmen against this possible denial of their rights it is further

directed that category or trade of no workman shall be changed within one year preceding the

completion of the Project without his consent in writing and that if any such change without consent is

made it will have no consequence inasmuch as such a workman will be entitled to the job of his earlier

trade provided the vacancy relates to that trade. As regards those of the workmen who cannot be

absorbed on the regular maintenance staff. I have no reason to doubt that the State Government who are

beneficiaries under the Project and also the Central Government will make every reasonable effort to get

them re-employed at any other Project or work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of

the country where there is a need for workmen of those trades.”

20.

A perusal of aforesaid findings made it ample clear that the order has been passed by the then learned Presiding

Officer, CGIT, Chandigarh to maintain industrial peace and to secure employment to the work charged employees

after the completion of the work and it was also held by the learned CGIT thatState Govt. who are beneficiary under

the project and the Central Govt. will make every reasonable effort to get those workmen re-employed at any other

4304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

project or work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where there is a need of

workmen of those trades.

21.

Admittedly, in this case, no effort was made by the respondent to give any employment after the retrenchment

of the workmen and even there is non-compliance of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules. The same are reproduced

below:

77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen. -The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the

particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to the seniority of

their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous

place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of

retrenchment.

78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. - (1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are

to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the

premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those

vacancies by registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor,

to the address given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter:

Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall

be sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in

the list referred to in rule 77 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the number of such

vacancies:

Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no obligation

on the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen:

Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the

employer, does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to

him by the employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be

filled on any subsequent occasion.]

(2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also inform the

trade unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled and names

of the retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule:

Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where

an intimation is sent to every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.

22.

However, the present work charged employee and other work-charged employees have been retrenched long

back and even at the stage it is impossible to re-employe them. However, certainly in respect of workcharged

employees present Respondent was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Judgment of Jaswant Singh (Supra) to

give benefits in terms of settlement and award dated 15.05.1974. The main purpose of Hon’ble Supreme Court and

Ld. CGIT Chandigarh was to rehabilitate to some extent the work charged employees and restore peace and congenial

atmosphere that is why Ld. CGIT Chandigarh had given directions to all state to re-employe them. Thus, it does not

lie in the mouth of present Respondent that no relief can be granted against present Respondent as petitioners are not

their employees.

So far as this argument of Ld. AR of the management that those work charged employees only who have

completed 10 years of service were required to be adjusted within 6 months from their retrenchment is concerned, the

same is devoid of merit as no effort was made by the management to adjust the work charged employees. Moreover,

no documentary evidence has been produced that any effort was made to adjust the workman after his retrenchment.

Further, Ld. CGIT Chandigarh in its last lines concluded as under:-

“As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance staff. I have no

reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also the Central

Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or work

whether in any one of these states or in any other part of the country where there is a need of workmen

of those trades”

Nothing has come on record that above directions were complied with.

23.

Moreover, in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees and management, it

cannot be interfered what were the terms and conditions in the said settlement. Further, CGIT Chandigarh has fixed

ten years time and accrual of vacancy within six months keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and

has evolved his own formula to bring peace and harmony between work charged employees and management but it

cannot be said to be a universal policy in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees

and management. However, no effort was made to adjust the petitioners in view of order of CGIT.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4305

24.

As regard, this contention of learned AR of management that petitioners were not the employees of the BBMB

but were the employees of BCB, the same is devoid of merit as Discharge certificate was issued by the BBMB.

Moreover, as per respondent Beas Control Board was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year

1966 and all the projects were transferred from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section

79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, BMB was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various

works as mentioned in Section 79 itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB

constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project

has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project

have been so transferred. All the projects under BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in

1984. When all work of BCB stands transferred to BBMB so it cannot be said that BBMB is separate identity than

BCB. Rather BCB has merged in BBMB. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh case(supra) in respect

of work charged employees has no where stated that relief can be sought by work charged employees only against the

BCB. So contention of Ld. AR of the management that BCB and BBMB are two separate entities is devoid of merit.

25.

So far this argument of Law Officer for the respondent that the case is hopelessly time barred is concerned, the

same is again devoid of merits as there was non-compliance of Rule 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules which has been

reproduced above. Moreover, there is no limitation period prescribed for filing a reference. Moreover, reference was

received in the year 2005 and thereafter, several rounds of litigations have taken place. So far as case laws on the

point of limitation the same are not attracted in the present case as there was no compliance of Judgment of Jawant

Singh case (Supra).

26.

However, it is added that workman was allowed terminal benefits as admitted by him. Moreover, it is also not

case of the petitioner that there is breach of Section 25 F of the Act.

27.

Further, there was non-compliance of Jaswant Singh Case (Supra), Reference No.2C of 1971 and Rule 77 & 78

of Industrial Rules and in this case it would be highly difficult to re-employe the workman. The only remedy left is to

compensate the workman in term of money.

28.

Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and other connected case of similar nature the

following scheme of compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:

Work charged employee who has completed 5 years of service shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/- along with

interest @9% per annum as compensation from the date of moving of application till the realization of amount.

ii.

Work charged employee who has completed less than 5 years but more than 1 year would be entitled

Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving of application till the realization of

amount.

iii.

Those employees who have not completed 1 year will not be entitled for any compensation in the present case.

The present work charged workman was employed on 01.10.1971 and was retrenched on 29.11.1978 as

mentioned in Discharge Certificate which is placed on file issued by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar, and has worked for 7 years and about 1 month (more than 5 years) so he is entitled of Rs.50,000/-

along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving the application till its realization.

29.

The reference is answered accordingly and stands disposed off.

30.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 1868.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

सह -

नंबर II चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

)

dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा. सं.

23012/39/2004-

(

.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक

4306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 5, 2024/ASIVNA 13, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2024

S.O. 1868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 211/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/08/2024.

[F. No. L-23012/39/2004– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No. 211 /2005

Registered on:- 03.08.2005

Hem Prabh S/o Sh. Bali Ram, R/o Village Bhayarta, P.O. Chanahan, Teh. & Distt. Mandi (HP).

….……....Workman

Versus

Bhakra Beas management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project Sundernagar Township, Distt. Mandi, (HP).

…..Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:- 18.07.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/39 /2004-IR(CM-II), dated 07.07.2005, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

““Whether the demand of Shri Hem Prabh for reinstatement in the services of BBMB, Sunder Nagar

is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

The brief facts, related to the case are that the construction of Beas Sutluj Link Project{hereinafter called as

BSL(P)} started in the year 1962 under Beas Control Board, which was constituted on 10.02.1961 with its

headquarter at Sundernagar and this project was under the control of Centre Government, who had been constructing,

maintaining, operating and administrating it through various Boards in different phases. After passing of Pb. Re-

Organisation Act, 1966(hereinafter called “Re-Organisation Act”) Beas Control Board was replaced by Beas

Construction Board (hereinafter called BCB). The workman was employed by BCB on 04.02.1966. The workman

who was employed in Beas Project(Unit-1) become the employee of Bhakra Beas Management Board(hereinafter

called as BBMB) in pursuance of proviso (1) of Section 80(3) and Section 80(5) of Re-organisation Act and the

workman become the employee of the Centre Government under the management of B.B.M.B. from 15.05.1976. The

workman has completed 240 days in every calendar year and was not interrupted till his retrenchment. The employer

made a bulk retrenchment of project employees in the year 1977 and 1978 and also in stages thereafter till 1984. The

workman was also retrenched by the employer on 29.12.1977 on account of reduction in strength due to part

completion of the BSL(P) and re-employment certificate was issued by the office of re-settlement B.S.L/B.B.M.B.

Sundernagar for the re-employment of the retrenched workmen of B.S.L.(P)(BBMB) in accordance with provision of

the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, thousands of other persons were appointed secretly by employer,

violating Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The employer is also doing unfair labour practices as

defined in Section 2(R)A of the ID Act. Management has also violated the provisions of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial

Dispute(Central) Rule, 1957(hereinafter called “The Industrial Rules”). By filling vacant posts, the employer declared

some posts as surplus and retrenched the employees working on those posts.

It is also maintained that the present workman and other workmen have filed a Civil Writ Petition No.403/1996,

titled as Sant Ram and 87 others Vs. BBMB in the Hon’ble High Court of Shimla for their re-employment and in the

said writ petition management filed reply dated 16.04.1996 by way of affidavit and admitted that retrenched workmen

are employee of BBMB. The workmen have then withdrew the writ petition and filed civil suits for declaring them as

a retrenched workmen of BBMB before the Sub-Judge, 1^st Class, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi(HP), on 21.01.1997 and

later on those suits were decided on 05.07.2002 and all plaints were returned to the workmen to be filed before the

competent authority on the basis of which the present proceedings were initiated after referring of the dispute of

workman from the Ministry of Labour on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, management filed writ petition before the Hon’ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court against the order of Ministry on 07.07.2005 and the same was dismissed on 07.05.2007

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 5, 2024/आजिन 13, 1946

4307

and Special Leave Petition filed bearing nos.16939-17007 of 2007 in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the

management was also dismissed on 08.07.2014. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of the workman may

kindly be allowed and workman be continued in the service of the management and be regularized and further be

given all the consequential benefits.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that workman is Ex-work charged employee of Beas

Construction Board, which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was

retrenched after completion of the work of BCB in the year 1977. The workman was paid terminal benefits i.e.