6353 GI/2024
(4411)
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. 40]
नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 6—अक् तूबर 12, 2024, िजनवार/ आजिन 14—आजिन 20, 1946
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 6— OCTOBER 12, 2024, SATURDAY/ASVINA 14– ASVINA 20, 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)
सड़क ृररविन और रािमागग मंत्राल
(रािभाषा अनुभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1896.—केंद्री सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्री का ागल , भारती राष्ट्री रािमागग प्राजिकरण, रा ृुर और क्षेत्री
का ागल , भारती राष्ट्री रािमागग प्राजिकरण, चंडीगढ़, जिनके 80% से अजिक कमगचारर ों ने हिंिी का गसािक ज्ञान
प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज।
[फा. सं. ई.-12012/1/2023-जवजवि/हिंिी]
कमलेि चतुवेिी, सं ुक्त सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-22102024-258099
CG-DL-W-22102024-258099
4412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
(Official Language Section)
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1896.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority of
India, Raipur and Regional Office, National Highway Authority of India, Chandigarh, where more than 80% staff
have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E.-12012/1/2023-Misc. /Hindi]
KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1897.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी-आर/
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/62/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/-R/62/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/62/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Sanjay Kumar Vishwas,
Mahamantri, Koyla Shramik Shakti Congress
Vishwas Niwas, High School Road,
Near Mongra Gas Agency, Mongra
Ward No.-63, P.O. Banki Mongra,
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
Workman
Versus
The General Manager ,
SECL, Korba Area
Mudapar, Korba
P.O. Korba, Distt.- Korba (CG)
Management
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4413
A W A R D
(Passed on this 04th day of September-2024.)
As per letter dated 13/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi,
this reference is received by this Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per
reference number No. L-22012/64/2018-IR(CM-II) dt. 13/11/2018. The dispute under reference related to:-
“Whether the action on the part of the local management of SECL Bagdewa Project under Korba Area
and the management of Area Headquarter Bilaspur after completing the procedural formalities including
screening procedure in respect of Shri Sawan Sai S/o. Late Lagan Singh and afterwards rejecting the
compassionate appointment on belated ground and not as per NCWA as espoused by the union is appropriate and
justified ? If not, what relief Shri Sawan Sai S/o. Late Lagan Singh is entitled to ?
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. The parties appeared and filed their statements of claim and defence.
The undisputed facts related to the controversy in hand is that Lagan Singh, who was an employee of
management died on 11.11.2004. His widow Smt. Dil Kunwar applied for compassionate appointment on 30.04.2011.
Between the period from 01.01.2004 to 30.04.2011, there was a litigation regarding issuing of succession certificate
between the two wives of the late workman with regard to debts and assets of the deceased workman, in which Dil
Kunwar succeeded. Thereafter, Dil Kunwar withdrew her application and filed another application on 19.07.2013
seeking appointment of her son Sawan Sai on compassionate grounds. This application was processed at area level
and the screening committee of management at area level forwarded it with its recommendation to the headquarter for
approval.
The headquarter refused to approve this proposal on the ground that the application was belatedly filed. This
action of headquarter has been challenged by the workman union on behalf of the applicant be an allegation that it is
arbitrary, capricious and against the provisions of NCWA. According to the workman side, the delay was due to legal
proceedings and not on the part of the applicant. Management has defended its action with a case that compassionate
appointment is not a right rather it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
In evidence, both the sides have filed affidavits of their witnesses, who have been cross examined. Parties
have filed documents which are admitted by the opposite party and will be referred to as and when required.
I have heard argument of Union representative Shri Sanjay Vishwas and learned Counsel for management
Shri Neeraj Kewat and have gone through the record.
After having gone through the record in the light of rival arguments it comes out that the reference itself is
the issue for determination.
Rule 9.3 of NCWA-VIII requires to be referred here and is being reproduced as follows :-
9.3.0
Provision of Employment to Dependants
9.3.1
Employment would be provided to one dependant of workers who are disabled permanently and
also those who die while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows.
9.3.2
Employment to one dependant of the worker who dies while in service
In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary
compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0.
9.3.3
the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter,
son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother,
widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law or son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost
wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependant of the
deceased.
9.3.4
the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for
employment and aged not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of
female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned,
there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.
The settled proposition of law crystallized through various decisions is that compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed as a right. The decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar,
(2019) 3 SCC 653 can be referred to in this respect. The relevant paragraph of the Judgment is being reproduced as
follows:-
4414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
This extract is taken from State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542 :
2019 SCC OnLine SC 80 at page 664
18.
While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State
has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate
appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognises that a family of a deceased employee may be placed
in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the
immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate
appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that
in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a
dependent member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be
considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfil the terms of the policy. In
that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But,
where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for
compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and
conditions which are prescribed by the State.
21.
The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those
decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this
Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4
SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in
the following extract : (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4
SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)
“2. … As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation
of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither
the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the
qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed
strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and
leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian
consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to
one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The
Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able
to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and
IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get
over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is
justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the
deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It
must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions
of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the
family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate
expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment
which are suddenly upturned.”
It comes out from perusal of record and evidence that a case for issuing succession certificate with regard to
assets and liabilities of Late Lagan Singh was filed by his widow Smt. Dil Kunwar in the year 2005 and was
registered as Case No.-14/2005. The judgment in this case was passed on 24.04.2007 and succession certificate was
issued on 09.03.2009. On the basis of this succession certificate, Dil Kunwar the widow of the deceased workman and
her sons, including the applicant were given the gratuity amount. Also it comes out that the application for
compassionate appointment was first filed on 30.04.2011 by Dil Kunwar claiming herself to be the widow of late
workman. She sought appointment for herself. Later on, she changed her mind and filed second application on
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4415
06.02.2013 seeking compassionate appointment for her son, the applicant. She withdrew her first application. The
point arises for consideration is whether this delay was beyond the control of the applicant and whether the
management was justified in not approving the recommendation for compassionate appointment of the applicant sent
by the screening committee on the ground of delay.
As the chronology of events discloses, the order issuing the succession certificate was passed in 2007, the
certificate was issued after completion of formalities on the part of the widow and other successors in 2009 and first
application for compassionate appointment for widow was filed in 2011. The application seeking compassionate
appointment for the present applicant was filed in 2013. Hence, it cannot be said that the delay was due to lengthy
litigation before Civil Court. No doubt the applicant side was also responsible for delay in filing the application.
In the case of BSNL Vs. Vidya Prasad, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 840, when there was delay in processing or
filing application for compassionate appointment, refusal of appointment on the ground of delay was approved by
Hon’ble the Apex Court. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgment are being reproduced as follows :-
This extract is taken from BSNL v. Vidya Prasad, (2021) 13 SCC 212 : (2023) 1 SCC (L&S) 428 : 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 840 at page 214
“7. In the given case, either on the death of his father or on the date on which he submitted his application for
compassionate appointment, the Scheme of 1998 was in vogue for seeking compassionate appointment, and as
observed he was eligible under the Scheme 1998 but his application remained pending until the new Scheme was
introduced on 27-6-2007 and thereafter rejected by a letter dated 15-9-2007.
8. The facts are conspicuous and manifest in that the delay in entertaining the application for fair
consideration in seeking employment submitted by the respondent is indisputably attributable to the appellants
and for the afore stated reason, he has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was
otherwise entitled to under the Scheme of 1998. It is always said that delay denies justice and the present
respondent became victim of the total inaction on the part of the appellants and its officials in not putting heed to
the application which was submitted by the family of the deceased employee, who died while in service. The
indigent family who has lost their breadwinner in seeking compassionate appointment to which one of the
dependants was otherwise entitled to under the law because of irresponsible attitude and redtapism which is
prevalent in the office of the appellants.
10. Taking into consideration the totality of the matter, we consider it appropriate that the respondent be
entitled at least for a cost of Rs 5 lakhs to be imposed on the appellants of causing delay in passing appropriate
orders on his application which was furnished by him for seeking compassionate appointment.
9. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that by the time the matter travelled to the Division Bench of the High
Court, the respondent crossed the age of 50 years and certainly it was not possible to consider him for
employment at such a belated stage, but the respondent at least could not have been left in lurch.
11. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court impugned dated 13-12-2017 [BSNL v. Vidya Prasad, Writ-A
No. 22369 of 2014, order dated 13-12-2017 (All)] is modified as stated above and the appeal is accordingly
disposed of. The payment of Rs 5 lakhs shall be made over to the respondent within a period of four weeks from
today, failing which he will be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. until actual payment.”
The relevant paragraphs of another Judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Power
Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 757 are being reproduced as follows :-
This extract is taken from Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 757 at page 775
“6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court
in SBI v. Raj Kumar [SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 150] where paras 8 and 13
are as under: (SCC pp. 664-65)
“8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the
other hand, it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of
merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection
process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment,
except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme,
to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate
appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is
no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in
force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending
application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an
application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.
4416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides
that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will
apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or
modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts.”
This extract is taken from Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 757 at page 776
“. In our view there is more than one impediment in the way of the respondent.
8. The first is the delay in approaching the courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making
representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second
is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has
been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to
avail of the same.
9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant clause of the new policy which reads as under:
“The above policy instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of instructions. The cases, where
compassionate employment has not been given due to discontinuance of the earlier policy since 4/2002, shall
also be considered and requisite relief, in lieu of compassionate employment, shall be granted as per the above
policy instructions.”
10. We are thus of the view that the offer of solatium could be the only remedy available, more so at this stage
of time.
11. The solatium of Rs 3 lakhs was offered immediately on 19-9-2004. We are informed that as per the current
policy the solatium has been revised to Rs 5 lakhs. That being the position and the respondent having been
deprived of the benefit of the amount, albeit by his own conduct, the interest of justice would be served by
directing that the sum of Rs 5 lakhs be paid to the respondent within two months from today.”
According to the Union Representative, time from 2004 to 2011 was taken in litigations because the
workman had two wives. It is evident from evidence on record that order was passed by the Court in 2007. The first
application was filed in 2011 and the second application requesting compassionate appointment to the applicant son
of the deceased employee was filed in 2013, hence it cannot be said that the delay was beyond the control of
applicants because there is no evidence in this respect. Accordingly, the application for compassionate appointment of
the applicant son of deceased employee is held to have been filed with unexplained delay.
As regards, the argument that screening committee had recommended appointment of the applicant, hence
headquarter i.e., the competent authority had no occasion to reject the recommendation cannot be accepted because
recommendation of the screening committee is not binding on the competent authority and it is within its right to
accept or reject it.
In the light of the principle of law mentioned above the action of the competent authority in not
approving the proposal of compassionate appointment of the applicant Sawan Sai is held legal and justified.
Before parting, reference of Para 9.5.0 of NCWA-VIII is necessary which is being reproduced as follows :-
9.5.0
Employment/Monetary compensation to female dependant
Provision of employment/monetary compensation to female dependants of workmen who die while
in service and who are declared medically unfit as per Clause 9.4.0 above would be regulated as
under:
(i)
In case of death due to mine accident, the female dependant would have the option to either accept
the monetary compensation of Rs. 4,000/- per month or employment irrespective of her age.
(ii)
In case of death/total permanent disablement due to cause other than mine accident and medical
unfitness under Clause 9.4.0., If the female dependant is below the age of 45 years she will have the
option either to accept the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/- per month or employment.
In case the female dependant is above 45 year of age she will be entitled only to monetary
compensation and not to employment.
(iii)
…………
As provided in Para 9.5.0, the widow of the deceased workman is held entitled to monetary compensation of
Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of death of the workman.
In the light of above discussion, the reference is answered as follows:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4417
AWARD
Holding the action on the part of the local management of SECL Bagdewa Project under Korba Area
and the management of Area Headquarter Bilaspur after completing the procedural formalities including
screening procedure in respect of Shri Sawan Sai S/o. Late Lagan Singh and rejecting the compassionate
appointment on ground of delay, appropriate and justified in law, Smt. Dil Kunwar W/o. Late Lagan Singh is
held entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of death of the workman Lagan
Singh within 30 days from the date of publication of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date
of Award till payment. No order as to cost.
DATE: 04/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1898.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y &22012/143/2006-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/37/2007) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/143/2006 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/37/2007
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Raghunath Napit
S/o. Late Rekhai Napit
At Bakho, OPM Shahdol ... Deceased during the proceedings
and represented by legal representatives
1/1.
Radha Bai Napit
W/o. Late Raghunath Napit
1/2.
Kushlesh Napit
S/o. Late Raghunath Napit
1/3.
Rajesh Napit
S/o. Late Raghunath Napit
1/4.
Mukesh Napit
4418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S/o. Late Raghunath Napit
1/5.
Annu Napit
S/o. Late Raghunath Napit
All R/o. 1339, Ward No.-1, Bhakho
Jhagra, Sohagpur, Distt.-Shahdol (M.P.)
WORKMAN
Versus
The Chief General Manager,
Sohagpur Area of SECL,
PO Dhanpuri, Distt.- Shahdol (MP)
MANAGEMENT
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 02nd day of September-2024)
As per letter dated 06/03/2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received under Section -10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/143/2006/IR(CM-II) dt.
06/03/2007. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of SECL, in terminating the services of Shri Raghunath Napit
w.e.f. 05.09.2001, is legal, proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is the entitled ? ”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties
appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.
According to the workman, he fell ill in the year 2002. He was under treatment from 04.07.2002 to
14.07.2002. Thereafter he was under treatment in colliery hospital. His condition did not improve. He requested the
management to refer him to the District Hospital. The management did not grant his request, hence he received the
treatment of Senior Doctor J.N. Garg in Buddhar in his private hospital and was under his treatment from 20.07.2002
to 28.12.2002. He presented himself for assuming his job on 30.12.2002. He came to know that he was terminated by
the management on the ground of unauthorized and willful absence. According to him no inquiry was conducted.
The case of the management is that the workman has been a habitual absentee. His attendance has been
irregular since 1998 till issue of charge sheet on 01.08.2001, details of his presence mentioned in the written statement
of claim. He was issued a charge sheet which was unsatisfactory, hence management decided to conduct a
Departmental Enquiry. He participated during the enquiry. He cross-examined the witness and produced his evidence.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report holding him guilty of misconduct. A copy of enquiry report was
served to him with show cause notice. He did not make any representation and thereafter punishment order dated
16.08.2002 was passed. Thus according to the management the enquiry was conducted properly and legally. During
the proceedings, the workman died, his legal representatives were substituted. Three of his legal representative i.e. his
widow and two sons filed their affidavit on preliminary issue no.-1. All of them appeared for cross-examination by the
management. The management has examined its witness and has proved its enquiry papers M1 to M8.
During proceedings, the workman died and his legal representatives were substituted.
Following preliminary issue was framed by my learned Predecessor :-
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper or not?
On the basis of evidence, this issue was decided vide order dated 10.10.2022 holding the Departmental
Enquiry legal and proper. This order is part of this Award.
Following additional issues were framed thereafter :-
2. Whether the charges are proved from the enquiry report ?
3. Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charge proved ?
4. Relief to which the workman is entitled ?
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4419
Parties were directed to file their evidence on remaining issues in form of documents/affidavit. They did not
file any evidence.
None appeared for workman at the stage of argument, no written argument was filed, I have heard argument
of learned Counsel for workman Mr. Rakesh Soni and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair, assisted by Mr.
Neeraj Kewat for management. I have gone through the record.
Issue No.-2 :-
Learned Senior Counsel for management has referred to the enquiry papers, specially the statement of the
workman and the statement of management witness in support of his argument that the charge was rightly held proved
by the Enquiry Officer.
Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the standard of proof required for charge to be proved in a
departmental enquiry is not the same as it is in a criminal trial.
The settled proposition of law is that the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a
departmental enquiry. Following judgments are being referred to in this respect.
Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and
independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs.
K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255
Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although
the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who
upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to
prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.
State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India,
(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)
In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State
Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7
SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417
(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,
it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are
two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a
departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of
proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and
the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."
In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct,
exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.
In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High
Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the
distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings
i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The
object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule
relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot
be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent
officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of
proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules
of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental
enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for
breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
4420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry
and trial of criminal case. "
I have gone through the enquiry papers. The charge against the workman was as follows:-
26.24.
Habitually absenting from work without sufficient reason or habitual late coming.
26.30.
Absenting from work without sufficient reason or without getting leave sanctioned or
overstaying on leave.
It also comes out that basis of the charge against the workman was i.e., total presence on work during the
year 2001 only 35 days.
There is evidence of two management witnesses who have deposed on the basis of records that the workman
came on work only for 35 days in 2001. Also is presence was 72 days in 1998, 113 days in 1999 and 55 days in 2000.
They have filed and proved the documents regarding attendance of the workman, they have been cross examined by
the workman. The defense of the workman is that he has been under treatment due to his prolonged illness for which
no evidence was produced during the enquiry. The management witnesses also stated that no information regarding
absence was given by the workman. Hence, I find no occasion to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and
Disciplinary Authority that the charges of misconduct as mentioned above, are proved against the workman.
Issue No.-2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3 :-
Learned Senior Counsel for management has submitted that regular presence is the core value that has to be
maintained by an employee while in service. No employer can afford to have an employee on its rolls who is so
casual in his presence.
The settled proposition of law is that the punishment can be interfered by this Tribunal only when it is so
disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Following judgments are being referred
to in this respect.
Hon’ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the
scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally
substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate
authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional
and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that:
“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed
by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a
conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining
all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty
imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness
expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the
delinquent person concerned works.”
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long
line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal
position in the following words:
“11.
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not
interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of
logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not
go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should
not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial
review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4421
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position
as follows:
“8.
……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a
result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only
if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless
shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary
authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment
unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would
shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment
by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of
misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be
maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal
would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587
7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in
the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.
If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of
adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the
findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in
departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly
perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived
at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the
findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated
or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.
(Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44]
, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala
Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at
Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)
In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:
“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence
is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that
discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of
confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.”
In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645
Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of
confidence in the employee, observing that:
“Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective
facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding
trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.”
Charges proved are that the workman willfully absented himself from duty in 2001. He was also absent from
duty for the period of 1998 to 2001. No employer can afford such absenteeism. Hence, holding the punishment not
disproportionate to the charge, issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-4 :-
On the basis of findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-
4422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
Holding the action of the management of South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), in terminating the
services of Shri Raghunath Napit w.e.f. 05.09.2001 legal, proper and justified, the workman is held entitled to no
relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 02/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1899.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/68/2014-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 243/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/68/2014 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 29th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 243/2014
Between:
The President (Bandari Satyanarayana)
Telengana Trade Union Council,
Rajkumar Complex, Saibaba Temple Road,
Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial-504208.
Adilabad Distt. (AP)
..…
.Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Area,
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4423
Mandamarri (PO)-504231.
Adilabad Distt.
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Shri M.V.L Narasaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/68/2014 (IR(CM-II)) dated
25.11.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area,
Mandamarri, Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services/Disempannelling the services of Sri Pagidi
Venkataiah, Ex-Badli Coal Filler, SMG-1 Incline, Mandamarri Area with effect from 7.4.1997 is justified or
not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?’
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 243/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded
to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner
has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 29th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1900.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.जल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/84/2011-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 78/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
4424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd.and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/84/2011 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 20th day of June, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 78/2011
Between:
Sri Gandham Mallesham,
Ex- Head Overman,
SCCL,/SMG-1 Inc.,
R/o H.No. 28-4-69, HB Colony,
Adilabad Dist.,
Bellampalli-504251.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandamarri Divn.,
Mandamarri-504231.
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Ms G. Sudha , Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/84/2011 (IR(CM-II)) dated
13.10.2011 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., nd their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandarmarri Division,
Adilabad Dist. In terminating the service of Shri Gandham Mallesham, Ex. Head Overman, SCCL/SMG-I
Inc., 21-10-2006 with a reason that, the applicant workman has accepted the alternative employment is legal
and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 78/2011 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him,
the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has
not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 20th day of June, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4425
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1901.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.जल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/98/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 1/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/98/2022 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2023
Between:
The Singareni Colleries Workers
Union (AITUC), Bellampalli
Mancherial District
Telengana-504251.
..….Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandmarri Area
Mancherial-504231
… Respondents
4426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/98/2022-IR(CM-II) dated
07/12/2022 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
MANDAMARRI FOR NON-CONSIDERING FOR 9 MONTHS SALARY SRI M. RAJARATNAM, EX-
ASSISTANT DURING UNFIT PERIOD IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE
WORKMAN IS ENTITLED FOR?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 1/2023 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not
file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to
prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 12th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1902.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.जल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/33/2023-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 13/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4427
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/33/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13/2023
Between:
The General Secretary,
The Singareni Collieries Workers
Union (Regd No. 7), Seshagiri Bhawan,
Kothagudem-507101.
..…
.Petitioner
AND
The Director (PA & W),
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem, Bhadadri
Telangana-507101.
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/33/2023-IR(CM-II) dated
27/04/2023 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Singareni Collieries Workers Union (Regd. No.7), Kothagudem against the
management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem for periodical promotions of Turners,
Machinists, Moulders, Welders, Motor Mechanics as chargehands (Mech) on account of change of
technology, closure of mines and non-availability of vacancies are legal and justified. If yes, what relief the
workmen are entitled to?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 13/2023 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not
file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to
prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
4428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1903.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.जल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22012/85/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 6/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.Ltd, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22012/85/2022 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 19th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 6/2023
Between:
The Singareni Colleries
Workers Union (AITUC)
Bellampalli,
Mancherial-504251.
..…
.Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Mandmarri Area
Mancherial-504231.
…
Respondents
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4429
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/85/2022-IR(CM-II) dated
05/01/2023 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this
Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the charter of demands raised by the Singareni Collieries Workers Union (AITUC), Belampalli
vide letter dated 03.04.2017 (copy enclosed) against the management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
(SCCL), Mandamarri Area is proper, legal & justified? If yes, what relief to the union is entitled to and what
directions, if any, are necessary in this respect?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 6/2023 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals
that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and
non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 19th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1904.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ए र इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&11012/3/2021-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 31/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Air
India Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-11012/3/2021 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
4430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2021
Between:
Smt. S. Gayathri & 4 others,
C/o Shri A. Nagendra Rao
S/o Late A. Suryachandra Rao,
R/o Flat No.207, Block-B,
Sai Keerthi Estates,
Near Lukshmi Ganpati Temple, Friend colony,
Hyderabad-500050.
..…
.Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
M/s Air India Ltd,
MRO Complex, Near Gate No.3,
RTI Airport, Shamshabad,
Hyderabad-500040.
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-11012/3/2021 (IR(CM-I)) dated 19.04.2021
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the Decision of Management of M/s Air India Ltd., Hyderabad in not paying the wages for weekly
Offs and public Holidays w.e.f. 27.09.2020 and also changing the service conditions of the workmen i.e.
Smt. S. Gayatri Devi, Typist; B. Aruna, Typist; B. Srinivas Goud, Driver; J Shiva Kumar, Driver and G.L.
Ganapathi Driver is legal, proper and justified in the view of section 9(A) of ID Act 1947? If not, what relief
the workmen are entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 31/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that
notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of
providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4431
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1905.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ए र इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&11012/30/2015-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1905.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 122/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Air India Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-11012/30/2015 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 122/2015
Between:
Sri Shaik Abdullah,
S/o Shaik Chand,
H.No. 12-1-1030, Near Badi Masjid,
North Lalaguda,
Secunderbad-500028.
..
….Petitioner
AND
1. The CMD,
Air India Ltd., Airlines House,
4432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Dy. General manager (Pers)
Air India Ltd., Engineering Complex,
Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.
3. The Regional Director,
Air India Ltd, Chennai-
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Shri A. Nagendra Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent: None
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-11012/30/2015 (IR(CM-I) dated 02.11.2015
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd., Hyderabad in not regularizing the services of Sri
Shaik Abdullah S/o Shaik Chand in the post of Helper (Canteen) is justified? To what relief is the workman
is entitled to?
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 122/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded
to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner
has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 12th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1906.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ए र इंजड ा जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&11012/07/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4433
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1906.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 107/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Air India Ltd and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-11012/07/2018 – IR (CM-I)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day of August, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 107/2018
Between:
The Regional Secretary,
Air Corporation Employees Union,
Air India Ltd., CTE, Ferozguda
Hyderabad-500011.
..
….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Sr. Manager (P),
Air India Ltd., MRO, AIESL,
GMR Airport, Shamshabad
Hyderabad-500011.
2.
The Executive Director (South),
Air India Ltd., Airline House,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai-600027.
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-11012/07/2018(IR(CM-I) dated 29.10.2018
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
4434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
i.
Whether the decision of the Management of Air India to outsourcing the canteen staff at
Hyderabad Airport without consulting/intimation to the Union is legal, proper and
justified? If not, what remedy will be available for them?
ii.
Whether decision of the Management in enhancement of canteen tariff without notice and
the executive canteen tariff applied to the workmen is legal, proper and justified? If not,
what directions are necessary in this regard?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 107/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that
notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘incomplete addressee’ hence returned to sender.
Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 12th day of August, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम् बर, 2024
का.आ. 1907.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y&22011/17/2016-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2024
S.O. 1907.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/86/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of Food Corportion of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/09/2024.
[No. L-22011/17/2016 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4435
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No.- CGIT/LC/R/86/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Arjun Patel,
S/o late Bharelal Petel Village &
PO. Lamhetaghat,
Jabalpur M.P. 482003
Shri Abdul Khalid Danish,
S/o late Najir Ahmad Danish, 3093,
Talib Sah Chowk,
Takkar Gram, Jabalpur M.P.
Workman
Vs
The Area Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Vikas Asha Kendra Buld 2722, Napier Town
Jabalpur M.P. – 482002
The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,
Chetak Building, Zone-II. M.P. Nagar,
Bhopal M.P. - 462011
Management
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 2nd day of May 2024)
As per letter dated 29/10/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
22011/17/2016 IR(CM-II) dt. 29/10/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India 2722, Napier Town, Jabalpur (MP)
/ General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Bhopal (MP) / Contractor M/s Laxmi Narayan
Khandelwal R/o Waraseoni Distt. Balaghat in terminating the services of (1) Shri Arjun Patel S/o. late Bhurelal
Patel Ex-Waterman/peon and (2) Shri Abdul Khalid Danish S/o late Shri Najir Ahmad Danish Ex-
Waterman/Peon w.e.f. 12.02.2016 is fair, legal, & justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were issued to the parties and were served.
In their statement of claim, the applicant Workmen, they were initially appointed by the management of
Food Corporation of India (in short, FCI) in the year 1984 and have since then working for management of FCI as
their employees. They were not paid their wages by the management. Hence they filed a case before the competent
authority in the payment of wages act for getting their wages, which was registered and was decided by the
competent authority wide its judgment in the August, 7th 2018 and February 13, 2017. The management was directed
by the competent authority, the Regional Commissioner Labour Central and management was directed to pay wages
of these workmen for the period February 2015 2 September 2015 total nine months, which was Rs. 27,000 /-for each
of the Workman along with compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000 payable by management to each of the Workman
and for the period October 2015, 2 February 2016 Rs. 52,316 /-to each of the workmen. According to the workmen,
they had raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner for regularization of their services with the management.
4436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The management has showed them to regularize their services as DPS Labour, and it is on this assurance from
management, they withdrew their petition for regularization filed by them before the Labour Commissioner. The
management passed an order on September 29th 2003 for regularizing them as DPS Labour, but without back wages
and benefits. It is the case of the applicant Workman that the management did not keep promise and continued them
as daily wagers. Ultimately, the management disengaged them on February 12th 2016 without any notice or
compensation. According to the workmen, this action of management is against section25G, 25F & 25H the industrial
Disputes act 1947 (in short, the ‘Act’). According to the workmen, by continuously working with the management,
since 1984 till the date of their termination against law, they have matured your their right to be regularized on their
post. The management has thus acted against the Act in refusing regularization to these workmen and also this
engaging them without notice or compensation. The Workmen for have accordingly sought the relief of his
reinstatement with all back wages and benefits, and they are regularization, holding his termination against law.
According to the management of FCI, please workmen were never engaged by them in any capacity. Hence,
there has never been any relation of an employer and workman as defined in the Act. They are not Workman as per
section 2(7) of the Act, hence there is no question of their termination by the management. Management further, has
pleaded that they have filed an appeal before the District Judge against order of the Competent Authority passed by it
in proceedings before it under Payment of Wages Act. According to management, it gets some jobs done through
contractors engaged by it. These workmen were the employees of the contractor. The management has accordingly
prayed that the reference be answered against the Workmen.
In evidence, the work & filed the affidavit’s of the workman Arjun Patel and Abdul Khalik Danish as their
examination in Chief. They have been cross-examined by management. The Workman said has also filed affidavits of
M.R. Khan, K.L. Tiwari, Ira Srivastava, G.P. Tiwari and Madhve Rao Pasi as their examination in Chief, out of which
two witnesses, GP Tiwari and Madhve Rao Pasi have been cross-examined by management. Management has filed
affidavits of its witnesses Anil Kumar Verma Sangeet Verma , who are the officers of the management.
The Workman side has proved documents which are Ex. W/1, three work slips together, Ex. W/2, office
order dated September 29th, 2003, directing the workman Arjun Patel to work as DPS worker as per the terms and
conditions as contained in the DPS regulations from the date of the order ,Ex. W/3,4 freight receipts, Ex. W/4 & are
18 & 6 photocopy documents connecting the Workman, with the management and certificates issued by different
officers at different times, some of them have been examined from the side of Workmen and have been cross-
examined by management, Ex. W/6, RTI documents 8 pages. The management has not proved any document.
I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the workmen, Mr A.K.Soni and Mr Mukesh Kumar
Agarwal for management. The Workman side has also filed memorandum of arguments which is part of the record. I
have gone through the record in the light of oral and written submissions.
The following issues arise for determination. On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments. They
are –
1.
Whether the applicant Workmen have successfully proved their continuous engagement from
1984 till date of termination of their services. February 12th, 2016 ?.
2.
Whether the action of management in this engaging these workmen is in violation of the Act?
3.
Whether the Workman are entitled to any relief ?
Issue number one-
Before entering into any discussion, following provisions of the ‘Act’ required to be mentioned and are being
reproduced as follows-
2(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—
(a)
voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b)
retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the
employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
3(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a
stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or]
(c)
termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
[25B. Definition of continuous service.-
For the purposes of this Chapter,--
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4437
(1)
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a
strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the
workman;
(2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or
six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-
(a)
for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date
with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (2), the number
of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-
a) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law
applicable to the industrial establishment;
b) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year;
c) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of
his employment; and
d) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such
maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-
No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under
an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a)
the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the
period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the
notice:
(b)
the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen
days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
(c)
notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be
specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.-
Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he
belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the
employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last
person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.-
Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall,
in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to
offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall
have preference over other persons.
The pleadings of the parties on this issue have been detailed earlier as above. According to the applicant
Workmen, they were first engaged in the year 1984 and continued with the management till February 12th 2016.
Management has completely denied their this allegation and has pleaded that they were never engaged by the
management of FCI at any point of time in any capacity, even as a daily wager. According to management, they
might have been the employees of the contractors who were given contracts by management for different jobs of
loading and unloading.
4438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The workmen have filed their affidavits as their examination in Chief in which they have corroborated their
case on this point as stated in their statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the workman Arjun Patel has stated
that there was an attendance register in the office, which was not meant for them. The attendance registers were
section wise. He further stated that since 1984 to December 2014, he was paid his wages in cash by the office of FCI
in Jabalpur. His co-worker Abdul Khalid Danish was also paid his wages by the office of FCI in Jabalpur in cash.
This witness admits that he was not issued an appointment letter and also that he is in the knowledge of the fact that
the management has referred an appeal before the Court of the District Judge against the order of competent authority
passed by him in the case relating to Payment of Wages , filed by the applicant Workmen. He denied that he was
engaged by the contractor. The other workman Abdul Khalid has stated in his cross-examination that he and his co-
worker were paid his wages by the admin office, the wages were paid in cash and that he was not an employee of the
contractor. These statements of these workmen are corroborated by Ex. W/1 to Ex. W/6. Most are relevant among
these is the office order dated September 29th 2003, issued by the District Manager wearing he has directed the
Workman Arjun Patel to work as DPS Labour in the DPS regulations act at Ramu Depot from the date of the order.
The 2nd workman has also stated that the same order was issued by management with respect to him, but he could not
file, the copy of the order. Management has not cross-examined, these two workmen on the point of their statement
that orders were issued by management, allowing them to work as DPS Labour on the date mentioned above. Hence,
the management shall be deemed to have not disputed this fact. Further, the various officers of the management,
names mentioned earlier in this judgment, have filed their affidavits as their examination in Chief, out of which two
have been cross-examined. Learned counsel for management has challenged the certificates issued by these officers of
management on the ground that firstly, they did not have authority to issue the certificates and secondly, since they
have retired and are no more in service of the management, they have conspired with these workmen. Even if these
certificates are not taken into account, their statements, at least they statements of two of these officers who have been
cross-examined by management may be looked into for corroboration of the case of the Workmen. These witnesses
have categorically stated that these workmen were working in the office of management, as employees of
management during their tenure. There is nothing in cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit them on their
statements on this point. Documentary evidence. The two judgments of the competent authority in the cases relating
to payment of wages, filed by these workmen(details mentioned earlier in this judgment) , the finding of the
competent authority that these workmen worked with the management, as their employees also corroborates the case
of the workmen and their continuous service under an employment of the management of FCI.
On the other side, the management witness Sangeet Verma has stated in his affidavit as his examination in
Chief that these workmen were never engaged in any capacity by the management. No records with respect to these
workmen is available with the management. The names of these workmen is not in the list of workmen who have
been paid wages by the management, an appeal is pending in the Court of the District judge against the payment of
wages order. Hence this order is not final. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was posted in
Jabalpur office of management, only in August 2022. There is nothing more in his cross-examination and relevant on
this issue number one. The other witness of management, Anil Kumar Verma has not been cross-examined by the
Workman said and he has been discharged by management on August 29th 2022, as it is apparent from the order sheet
of the date. Hence, his affidavit as no relevance.
Thus, there is on record, at least statements of two workmen and their two witnesses who have been cross-
examined by the management who corroborated the case of the workmen that firstly, they were engaged by the
management of FCI as daily wager, secondly, they were accorded status of DPS Labour by management wide its
order dated September 29th 2003. That statements of these witnesses are supported by the documents Ex. W/1 to Ex.
W/6, details mentioned above. It has to be kept in mind that there is no stay order with respect to operation of the
judgments are with respect to payment of wages to these Workmen. They are binding on party till they are in
force/not set aside by higher Court. Opposed to it is the statement of one management witness who claims knowledge
of the fact from the record maintained by Management but not produced before this Tribunal. It is in part to mention
here that during pendency of the proceedings, the workmen side files an application on March, 19th 2020 with
affidavit seeking direction to management to file the original documents mentioned in the application Management.
The management filed written objection. This application was allowed vide order dated March 20th 2020. The
management was directed to file these documents mentioned in the application in original or filed an affidavit of
someone authorized by management. If these documents were not available. The management did not file the original
documents nor did they file the affidavit that these documents were not available.
Thus, in the light of above discussion, the evidence from the side of the workmen on number one,
seems more reliable and accordingly, the workmen are held to have successfully proved their continuous
engagement from 1984 till date of termination of their services. February 12th , 2016 and issue number one is
answered accordingly.
Issue number two-
Since it is the case of the applicant Workmen that no notice or compensation was paid to them before this
engaging them. The management has flatly denying the engagement of these workmen hence submits that there was
no question for any notice or compensation or any disengagement of these workmen by management. In these
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4439
circumstances, and in the light of findings recorded on issue number one, the action of management terminating
the services of these workmen without compensation is held against violation of section 25F & 25G of the ‘Act’
& is law and unjust. Issue number two is answered accordingly.
Issue number three-
In the light of findings on issue number one and two, the question arises as to what relief the Workmen are
entitled to.
Learned counsel for the workmen has relied on five Judges judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the
case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs Umadevi reported in 2006AIRSCW 1991. In paragraph 44
of this judgment, referred to by the learned counsel, the Supreme Court had issued directions to the union of India,
state governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such
irregularly appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned posts. But not under the cover of
orders of sports or tribunals. It was also directed that this exercise should be completed within six months of this
judgment. The learned counsel has submitted that the management never complied this direction of Supreme Court.
From the record, it has been held proved that these workmen have put in about 30 years under the
engagement of the management, also, it is true that the order of the management itself, granting DPS status to these
workmen on September 29th 2003 was also not complied with.
There is also on record, a judgment of High Court of MP passed in WP number 5142/1997 against the
present management on August 18th 1998 in which the High Court has directed the Workman who was working as a
daily wager with the management and there was an order of his reinstatement passed by this Tribunal, confirmed by
High Court, SLP dismissed by Supreme Court to regularize him when after this much of litigation, the workmen was
reinstated in compliance of the said order as a casual daily wager only.
It is the settled proposition of law that when the termination of a Workman is held against law, he is entitled
to any one of the two reliefs, ie; either reinstatement or without back wages or compensation. In the case in hand,
keeping in view the period of engagement of these workmen and also the fact that these workmen were granted DPS
status by management. Long back in 2003 (details mentioned earlier) compensation to them will not be a just and
proper relief. In my considered view, reinstatement of these workmen with all the benefits of our DPS Labour,
since September 29th, 2003 will meet the ends of Justice. They are also held entitled to be considered for the
regularization according to rules and procedure in this respect, treating themselves to be DPS Labour, since
September 29th 2003. They are also held entitled to litigation cost contributed at Rs. 25,000 /-to be divided
between them equally. Management is held under obligation to complete this whole exercise and payment of
any money due as a benefit of this exercise within 30 days from the date of publication of this award. In the
official Gazette, failing which interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award till payment. Issue
number 3 is answered accordingly
In the light of the above discussion, following award is passed.
AWARD
Holding the action of management in disengaging the Workman Arjun Patel and Abdul Khalid by the
management of FCI against law and unjustified, they are held entitled to reinstatement with all the benefits of
DPS Labour, since September 29th, 2003. They are also held entitled to be considered for the regularization
according to rules and procedure in this respect, treating themselves to be DPS Labour, since September 29th
2003. They are also held entitled to litigation cost computed at Rs. 20,000 /-. Management is held under
obligation to complete this whole exercise and payment of any money due as a benefit of this exercise within 30
days from the date of publication of this award. In the official Gazette, failing which interest at the rate of 8%
per annum from the date of Award till payment.
DATE:- 02/05/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1908.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (06/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12025@01@2024&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½&218]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
4440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 3rd October, 2024
S.O. 1908.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Central Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR(B-I-218)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/06/2020
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Smt. Urmila Chouhan,
W/o late Lakshman Singh Chauhan,
R/o 1967 Railway Colony,
Kabra ka Tal, Gwalior (M.P.)
APPLICANT
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
North Central Railway,
Jhansi (U. P.)
NON-APPLICANTS
O R D E R / A W A R D
(Passed on this 05Th day of September-2024.)
1. The Petitioner, who happens to be the widow of workman Lakshman Singh has filed this petition seeking
relief of setting aside termination of her husband by management on 14/04/1986 as well for compassionate
appointment as widow of the workman and also for recovery of dues of her late husband.
2. In-spite of service of notice, the management did not appear hence, the petition proceeded ex-parte against
management.
3. In evidence, petitioner filed some photocopied documents which she did not care to prove.
4. She did not file even her affidavit in support of her allegations in the petition.
5. None of the parties appeared at argument stage. I have perused the record.
6. The initial burden to prove her claim is on the petitioner, in absence of any evidence, the petitioner is held to
have failed to discharge this burden.
7. Hence holding the case of petitioner not proved, The petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Order; petition is dismissed.
9. Let the copy of the Order/Award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as
per rules.
DATE: 05/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4441
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1909.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj सेंट्रल बैंक
ऑफ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]
ds iapkV (02/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12012@70@2017&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1909.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2018) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmednagar as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their
workmen.
[No. L-12012/70/2017-IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDNAGAR
(Before Shri. S.N. Sonawane Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ahmednagar)
Reference (IDA) No. 02/2018
(CNR No. MHIC160000122018)
1.
Zonal Manager,
Central Bank of India,
317, M.G. Road,
Pune 411001.
2.
Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India
Regional Office,
Aurangabad Plot No. 113,5/5/72
New Oasmanpura, Auragabad 431 001.
3.
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Branch Nighoj, At Po.: Nighoj,
Tal.: Parner, Dist.: Ahmednagar
...
First Party
Vs.
Shri Vijay Bhau Gund,
Age: 39 years, Occ.: Nil,
At Po.: Nighoj, Tal.: Parner,
Dist.: Ahmednagar.
...
Second Party
Appearances :-
Tejaswini T. Kakad, Advocate for First Party.
Shri. K.Y. Modgekar, Advocate for Second Party.
4442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
:AWARD:
(Date: 29-04-2024)
1. This reference is referred by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide referral
order dated 25-12-2017 for adjudicating the matter. Both the parties appeared before this Court. Thereafter, issues
were framed on 1.10.2022 and matter was fixed for Evidence of second party workman. However, the second
party consistently remained absent on each and every date. Learned Advocate Shri Modgekar on behalf of the
second party filed purshis that he has informed to second party workman regarding date of hearing dated 6-1-
2024. Furthermore the second party workman did not adduce any evidence before court. Matter was fixed for
dismissal on 30-3-2024 and adjournment was granted with cost of Rs. 500/-. However, the second party workman
and their Advocate did not deposit the cost and have not taken any steps in this matter. Today also second party is
absent and no any application for adjournment is on record. Therefore, in my opinion the 2nd party is not
interested in proceeding with the present reference. Second party failed to prove its case. Hence, I pass the
following order:-
:AWARD:
1.
The reference is answered in the negative and disposed of for non prosecution.
2.
Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of
Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.
S. N. SONAWANE, Presiding officer
Dated :29.04.2024
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1910.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल, िूरसंचार भवन, एबी रोड, मुरजना (म.प्र.);मंडल अजभ ंता, िूरसंचार, बीएसएनएल,
हभंड (म.प्र.), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और , श्री करु @ करण, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्री सरकार
औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभग सं् ा आईडी नंबर सीिीआईटी/एलसी/आर/04/2016,
को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.10.2024 को
प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2024-173-आईआर(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1910.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/04/2016), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Telecom Building, AB Road Morena (M.P.);
The Divisional Engineer ,Telecom, BSNL, Bhind (M.P.), and Shri Karu @ Karan, Worker, which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.10.2024,
[No. L-42025/07/2024-173-IR(DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/4/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Karu @ Karan S/o. Sampat
R/o. Shri Krishna Colony,
Ahead of Virendra Vatika, Lahar Road
Bhind (M.P.)
Workman
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4443
Versus
1. The General Manager,
Telecom, BSNL
Telecom Building, AB Road
Morena (M.P.)
2. The Divisional Engineer
Telecom, BSNL
Bhind (M.P.)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 12th day of September-2024.)
The workman has filed a petition U/S. 2-A (2 & 3) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as amended by the
Amendment Act of 2010, against his disengagement by the management.
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that he was appointed as part time Sweeper by the management on
01.07.1986 and worked continuously till 26.08.2008 when his services were terminated without any notice or
compensation, which is in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the
Act, 1947). He had worked more than 240 days as required under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. Further alleged that
the workmen, Shanti Bai, Hariom and Tanti Ram, who were engaged by management after him were regularized in
service by management. He raised a dispute against his termination before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central) within 3 years which could not end in conciliation within 45 days, hence filed this petition and requested
that holding his termination against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits and also
entitled to be regularized as a Sweeper from the date of his termination.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker but never completed 240 days in any year including the year preceding the date of his termination.
The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving notice or
payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. Hence, the workman, being a daily wager was not entitled to
be management nor can he be regularized in service. Management has prayed that the petition be answered against the
workman.
The workman side has filed rejoinder wherein he has mainly reiterated his allegations in the statement of
claim.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit, he did not appear for cross examination, hence his affidavit
is of no relevance. He has also filed and proved photocopy documents, which are Ex. W/1 letter dated 06.05.1991
recommending payment according to the hours of work done by the workman, Ex. W/2 letter dated 08.03.1999
indicating that the workman was a part time sweeper, Ex. W/3 application of workman forwarded by SDO to
Divisional Engineer for regularization, Ex. W/4 letter of Divisional Engineer regarding pay anomalies of workman,
Ex. W/5 & W/6 letters of SDO sent to Divisional Engineer on 01.01.2000 recommending regularization of the
workman, Ex. W/7, W/8/, W/9, W/10, W/11 to W/16 are also communications in the department with respect to the
regularization of the workman.
Management side has filed affidavit of its witness Harish Kumar as his examination in chief, he has been
cross examined by workman. No Document has been proved by management.
I have heard argument of Advocate Shri Praveen Yadav for workman and Sushma Pandey for management. I
have gone through the written arguments as well, filed by the parties and had perused the record.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination :-
1)
Whether, the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in an
year ?
2)
Whether, the disengagement of the workman is legal ?
3)
Whether, the workman is entitled to any benefit ?
4444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue No.-1 :-
Before, entering into any discussion, Section 25-B of the Act is being reproduced as follows :-
25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an
employer shall include the days on which—
(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the
industrial establishment;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment; and
(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave
does not exceed twelve weeks.
The initial burden to prove this issue is on the workman. Pleadings of the parties on this issue have been
elaborated earlier. The workman has corroborated his allegations in his statement of claim in his affidavit filed as his
examination in chief. He has filed and proved documents as mentioned above. Even if his affidavit is discarded the
documentary evidence Ex. W/1 to W/25 which are admitted by management and against them, there is no document
as well there is nothing in the cross examination of management witness, corroborate his allegations that he worked
with management and completed 240 days continuously in a year. His second allegation that juniors were regularized
is held not proved because there is no documentary evidence in this respect and the workman did not appear for cross
examination by management with respect to his affidavit filed as his examination in chief.
On the contrary, the management witness, who is management states that he was never posted in the
management, there was no record available regarding the applicant workman.
Hence, the claim of the workman that he worked continuously for 240 days in a year is held proved.
Issue No.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2 :-
Before entering into any discussion on merit, Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act are being reproduced as
follows :-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by
the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4445
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India,
is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any
agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches
any other workman.
Case of the workman is that he was not issued any notice of retrenchment nor was he paid compensation,
which he has corroborated in his evidence. It is not the case of management that he was paid any compensation or
given prior notice. Hence, termination of his services is held in violation of 25-F & 25-G of the Act and issue no.-2 is
answered accordingly.
Issue No.-3 :-
In the light of findings recorded above the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled ?
Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that keeping in view the long tenure of the workman, he should
be reinstated with back wages. He has referred to a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. passed
in W.A. No.- 1431/2018 and other connected writ appeals, in which a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court has
approved the Award of this Tribunal passed in the case of RC/09/2012 and other connected references, holding the
workman entitled to be reinstated with 50% of back wages with respect to the workman who had completed about 20
or more years of continuous engagement with the management as daily wager and their termination was found in
violation of the Act.
Learned Counsel for management has submitted that compensation may be in the interest of justice in the
case in hand because the workman was not appointed against a sanctioned vacancy following recruitment procedure.
In the case in hand, the workman has been under engagement since 1986 till 2008, thus has completed about
20 years as a part time sweeper. He has stated in his affidavit that he has been out of job after his disengagement but
his this allegation cannot be held proved in absence of his cross examination as mentioned above. Though every
person does make endeavor to survive it is not that only a street beggar will be considered a person out of job. Since,
he was a part time worker, hence the benefit of the Division Bench Judgment referred to above cannot be given to
him. After consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am of the considered view
that a lump sum compensation of Rs. Four lacs only in lieu of all his claims, payable to him within 30 days from the
date of publication of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% from the date of Award till payment will meet the ends
of justice.
Issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
AWARD
Holding the action of management in discontinuing the services of Shri Karu @ Karan S/o. Sampat,
Ex-Sweeper w.e.f. 26.08.2008 and unjust invalid and unreasonable, the workman is entitled to a lump sum
compensation of Rupees Four lacs only in lieu of all his claims, payable to him within 30 days from the date of
publication of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% from the date of Award till payment. No order as to cost.
DATE: 12/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1911.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक (िूरसंचार जिला), भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड सीटीओ कंृाउंड, िबलृुर (मप्र); जिला िूरसंचार अजभ ंता,
भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, िमोि (मप्र), प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और , श्री िुगाग प्रसाि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि
में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , िबलृुर ृंचाट(संिभग सं् ा आईडी नंबर
सीिीआईटी/एलसी/आर/28/2016, को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.10.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-40012/55/2015-आईआर(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/28/2016), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
4446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employers in relation to The General Manager (Telecom Dist.),Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited CTO
Compound, Jabalpur (MP); the District Telecom Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Damoh (MP),and
Shri Durga Prasad, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on
01.10.2024,
[No. L-40012/55/2015-IR(DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Durga Prasad S/o. Laxman Prasad
R/o. Garhikhana, Naya Bazar No.-3,
District – Damoh - 481051 (MP)
Workman
Versus
1. The General Manager (Telecom Dist.)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
CTO Compound,
Jabalpur (MP) - 482001
2. The District Telecom Engineer
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Damoh (MP) - 481051
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 17th day of September-2024.)
As per letter dated 15/02/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as made this
reference to the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per reference
number L-40012/55/2015 - IR(DU) dt. 15/02/2016. The dispute under reference related to :-
^^D;k izca/kra= VsyhdkWe fMfLVªDV bathfu;j] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM neksg e0iz0 ds izca/ku
}kjk vkosnd Jh nqxkZ izlkn vkRet y{e.k izlkn dks ikVZ Vkbe Lohij ds :i esa fnukad 15-09-1984 ls
fu;ksftr djus ds i'pkr~ mudh lsok,a fu;fer u dj vU;Fkk lsok ls i`Fkd djus dh dk;Zokgh
U;k;ksfpr gS \ vkSj ekg flrEcj 2009 ls vxLr 2010 rd vkosnd dks osru ds Hkqxrku u djus dh
dk;Zokgh U;k;ksfpr gS \ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr deZpkjh fdl vuqrks”k dk gdnkj gS \
The workman has filed a petition U/S. 2-A (2 & 3) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as amended by the
Amendment Act of 2010, against his disengagement by the management.
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that he was appointed as part time Sweeper by the management in
1985 and is continuing in service as such till date of filing the petition and thereafter. The SDO Damoh sent a letter to
District Telecom Engineer Sagar on 24.08.1995 mentioning the wages of part time sweeper is name finds mentioned
in this letter. Thereafter, many letters were written by the officers of management regarding regularization of the
workman but were not taken care of by higher management. The workman also sent various representations to
management seeking his regularization but of not avail. There is a policy and rules of department with respect to
regularization of part time workers. The workman has not been paid salary from September 2009 to August 2010.
According to the workman, this action of management is arbitrary and is against law. The workman has thus sought
his regularization as sweeper in the services of management as well arrears of his salary.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4447
as a casual worker but never completed 240 days in any year including the year preceding the date of his termination.
The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving notice or
payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. Hence, the workman, being a daily wager was not entitled to
be management nor can he be regularized in service. Management has prayed that the petition be answered against the
workman.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit, he has been cross examined by management. He has also
filed photocopy documents which he never cared to prove. Management side has filed affidavit of its witness Harish
Kumar as his examination in chief, he has been cross examined by workman. No Document has been proved by
management.
I have heard argument of Advocate Shailendra Pandey for workman and R.S.Khare for management. I have
gone through the written arguments as well, filed by the parties and had perused the record.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issue arise for determination :-
Whether, the workman, being a part time daily wager has any right to be regularized as an
employee of BSNL ?
Case of the workman is that he has been a part time daily wager and working as a sweeper in the office of
management. Except the statement of the workman, there is no other material proved, to corroborate this case of
workman. Management witness has corroborated the case of management that the workman was never employed in
any capacity by management at any point of time.
Though the case of the workman, as stated above, cannot be held proved in the light of evidence as discussed
above, even if assuming that he has been working as a part time sweeper, since his appointment is not regular, he does
not have any right to regularization in service of management. Following judgments are referred to in this respect :-
1. Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136. Held – there
is distinction between daily wager and a person holding regular post. In wrongful termination of a daily
wager Award of reinstatement is not a proper relief.
2. Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (5 Judges Bench). Held – casual
labour/temporary employee do not have any right to regular or permanent public appointment.
3. M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Vs. S.C. Pandey, (2006) 2 SCC 716. Held – a daily
wager does not hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of provisions of Act and Rules framed there under
and therefore does not derive any legal right.
In the light of above findings, the petition fails.
AWARD
Petition dismissed. No order as to cost.
DATE: 17/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1912.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्री सरकार
मिाप्रबंिक, बीएसएनएल, िीमाृुर, नागालैंड और 1 अन् , प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और, सकगल सजचव,
बीएसएनएल जलस्ट्टेड कजिुअल वकगर ूजन न, िीमाृुर, नागालैंड, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , गुवािाटी ृंचाट(संिभग सं् ा आईडी नंबर 15 of 2019), को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
दि ा ा ग ा िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 01.10.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-40011/24/2019-आईआर(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID. No. 15 of 2019), of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
4448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in relation to the General Manager, BSNL, Dimapur, Nagaland and 1 other, and Circle Secretary, BSNL Listed
Casual Worker Union, Dimapur, Nagaland, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central
Government on 01.10.2024,
[No. L-40011/24/2019-IR(DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
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. 15 of 2019.
PARTIES
: Circle Secretary, BSNL Listed Casual Worker Union, Dimapur, Nagaland.
Workmen/Union.
-vrs-
The Chief General Manager, O/O the General Manager, BSNL, Dimapur,Nagaland and 1 other.
OP/Management.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Workmen/Union :
Sri Rup Kumar Borgohai,
Circle Secretary, BSNLLCWU, NE-II Circle, Dimapur.
For the Management. :
Sri Ashiho Kholi, AGM (HR/Admn), O/o the Chief General
Manager, BSNL, NE-II Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland.
INDUSTRY
:
BSNL
STATE
:
Nagaland.
Date of Award :
18-09-2024
A W A R D
Parties are absent without steps. This Reference has been made by the Govt. of India through Ministry of
Labour and Employment by passing of order No.L-40011/24/2019-IR (DU) New Delhi dated 02-12-2019 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 for adjudication of an Industrial Dispute, as to whether Management of BSNL, Nagaland, Dimapur is
justified in not granting Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) to Sri Teyogsang and 146 other Casual Workers and not
regularizing Smt. Ahoni Sumi and 38 other Temporary Status Mazdoor.
After reference of this Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal the concerned Union has filed an application
through their District Secretary and Circle Secretary of their Union stating that the Case may be ‘closed’ as the Union
wants to fight through Union procedure.
It is 12-30 p.m. now the Union representatives are not found available. BSNL, Dimapur has taken no steps.
Since the Union is not inclining to contest the Industrial Dispute before this Tribunal, the Reference case is dismissed
for non prosecution.
Let an award be drawn up in the light of above observation. Copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the
Ministry for information and notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1913.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्री सरकार
मु् मिाप्रबंिक, (प्रभारी) नेिनल फर्टगलाइिर जलजमटेड, नांगल ूजनट, न ा नांगल, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और
अध् क्ष, नंगल ाि फजक्री मििूर िल, न ा नंगल रोृड़, ृंिाब; अध् क्ष, राष्ट्री उवगरक कमगचारी संघ (ृंिीकषत), न ा
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4449
नंगल रोृड़; अध् क्ष, नेिनल फर्टगलाइिर वकगसग, न ा नंगल, रोृड़, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िगष्ट केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -1,चंडीगढ़,ृंचाट(संिभग सं् ा 69/2018)को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा
िज,प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्द्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.10.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l
[सं. एल-42011/61/2018-आईआर(डी ू)]
दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1913.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court -1, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, (i/c) National Fertilizer Ltd. Nangal Unit, Naya Nangal, and The
President, Nangal Khad Factory Mazdoor Dal, Naya Nangal Ropar, Punjab ; The President, National
Fertilizer Employees Union (Regd), Naya Nangal, Ropar; The President, National Fertilizer Workers, Naya
Nangal, Ropar, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.10.2024.
[No. L-42011/61/2018-IR(DU)]
DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh.
ID No.69/2018
Registered on:-12.11.2018
1.
President Nangal Khad Factory Mazdoor Dal, 165/ Type-I, Sector-1, Naya Nangal Ropar, Punjab.
2.
President National Fertilizer Employees Union (Regd), H.No.13/11/111, Naya Nangal Ropar.
3.
President National Fertilizer Workers Union. No.76, Type-II, Sector-1, Naya Nangal, Ropar.
…….Workman/ Unions
Versus
Chief General Manager, (i/c) National Fertilizer Ltd. Nangal Unit, Naya Nangal-140125.
..….Management
Order
Passed On:-18.07.2024
Central Government vide Notification No. 42011/61/2018-IR(DU) dated 29.08.2018, under clause
(d) of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the National fertilizers Ltd. Naya Nangal, Management action of transferring the
workmen to different units of national fertilizers limited is legal, fiar and justified? If not, what relief
workmen are entitled to and from which date?’2. Whether the National Fertilizers limited, Naya
Nangal, Management action of transferring the workmen to different units of national fertilizers
limited amounts to violation of certified standing orders if yes, What relief the union and workmen
are entitled to and from which date ?”
1.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by
Workman Union. Three emails have been received from Union’s who were applicants in this case that they withdraw
the present reference and do not want to pursue it further. Counsel for Union Sh. SC Gupta made a statement that he
is withdrawing the present reference. Ld. Counsel for Management has also made a statement that he has no objection
if the reference is disposed off as withdrawn by the worker union which is recorded on separate sheet.
2.
Since the Ld. Counsel of workman has withdrawn the present case, therefore there is no need to proceed the
case further. Hence the present claim is dismissed as withdrawn. File after completion be consigned in the record
room.
4450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to Centralv Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID
Act, 1947.
KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1914.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a30/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12012@104@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India their workmen.
[No. L-12012/104/2013-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2014
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Shri Arvind Rao
S/o. Basant Rao
H.No. 2360, Punjab Bank Colony
Cherital Ward, Damoh Naka, Jabalpur (MP)
Workman
Versus
1. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
L.H.O. Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)
2. The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Personnel Banking Branch
Sadar, Distt. Jabalpur (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 06th day of September-2024.)
As per letter dated 22/04/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as made this reference to
the Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per reference number L-
12012/104/2013 - IR(B-I) dt. 22/04/2014. The dispute under reference related to :-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4451
“Whether the action of management of Branch Manager State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch,
Sadar, Jabalpur/ Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal (MP) in
discontinuing the services of Arvind Rao S/o. Shri Basant Rao, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 31.08.2010 and not
absorbing him into State Bank of India from State Bank of Indore is just valid and reasonable ? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?”
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the workman, in short is that he was appointed as Peon initially in the Ranjhi Branch on
05.01.1997. Thereafter, he was transferred to Sadar Branch under oral order of the Branch Manager, dated 28.02.2004
and worked continuously till 31.08.2010 when his services were terminated without any notice or compensation,
which is in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He
had worked more than 240 days as required under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He requested that holding his
termination against law, he be held entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits and also entitled to be
regularized as a Peon in the bank from the date of his termination.
The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management, inter alia,
is that the alleged workman was neither employed as permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked
as a casual worker in the State Bank of Indore but never completed 240 days in any year including the year preceding
the date of his termination. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act 1947 is not applicable and therefore, the
question of giving notice or payment of retrenchment compensation does not arise. It was further pleaded that in
exercise of powers U/S. 35(2) of the State Bank of India Act 1955 (Act of 1955) Central Government accorded
sanction to acquire the State Bank of Indore vide notification dated 28.07.2010 which was to come in force
immediately on expiry of 30 days from the date of notification i.e., 27.08.2010. According to Clause 7 and 8 of the
Notification, only the services of permanent officers or employees including those on probation serving in the
transferor bank immediately before the effective date were to be transferred to the transferee bank i.e., State Bank of
India, that too on the option of the officers/officials of the transferor bank i.e., State Bank of Indore prayed that the
reference be answered against the workman. Hence, the workman, being a daily wager was not entitled to be taken
into the services of State Bank of India. Management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
The workman side has filed rejoinder wherein he has mainly reiterated his allegations in the statement of
claim.
In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit, he has been cross examined by management. He has also
filed and proved photocopy documents regarding details of temporary/daily wage/ casual labour employed in the
branch and amount paid to them, payment charges register (copy), details regarding bonus prepared on 08.08.2001 by
the then State Bank of Indore.
Management side has filed affidavit of its witness Sanjay Kumar as his examination in chief, he has been
cross examined by workman. Management has further filed photocopy invoice dated 25.03.2022 and bank certified
statement of account of the workman from 01.05.2019 to 18.04.2020.
I have heard argument of Advocate Shri K.B. Singh for workman and Pranay Choubey for management. I
have gone through the record.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination :-
1)
Whether, the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in an
year ?
2)
Whether, the disengagement of the workman is legal ?
3)
Whether, the workman is entitled to any benefit ?
Issue No.-1 :-
Before, entering into any discussion, Section 25-B of the Act is being reproduced as follows :-
25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,
including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike
which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six
months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
4452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with
reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an
employer shall include the days on which—
(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the
industrial establishment;
(ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment; and
(iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such maternity leave
does not exceed twelve weeks.
The initial burden to prove this issue is on the workman. Pleadings of the parties on this issue have been
elaborated earlier. The workman has corroborated his allegations in his statement of claim in his affidavit filed as his
examination in chief. In his cross examination, he admits that he was paid bonus for the days he worked. He further
states that he was not issued any appointment letter, he used to work as a peon, his job was record keeping,
maintenance of vouchers etc. He is filed and proved documents as mentioned above which corroborate his allegations
that he worked with the bank of State Bank of Indore and completed 240 days continuously in a year.
On the contrary the management witness no.-1, who is an Officer of State Bank of India states that he was
never posted in the state bank of Indore, there was no record available regarding the applicant workman. At present,
these works are taken from persons engaged through outsourcing agencies. The management witness no.-2 Kalicharan
has stated this fact in his affidavit and has filed copy of invoice regarding outsourcing and copy of statement of
account of the workman for 2019 to 2020 to show that he was working through outsourcing agency.
The calculation sheet regarding bonus Ex. W/2, filed by the workman himself, admitted by management
shows that he worked within the period. Hence, the claim of the workman that he worked continuously for 240 days
in a year is held proved.
Issue No.-1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.-2 :-
Before entering into any discussion on merit, Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act are being reproduced as
follows :-
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period
of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'
average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by
the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India,
is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any
agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman
who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches
any other workman.
Case of the workman is that he was not issued any notice of retrenchment nor was he paid compensation,
which he has corroborated in his evidence. It is not the case of management that he was paid any compensation or
given prior notice. Hence, termination of his services is held in violation of 25-F & 25-G of the Act and issue no.-2 is
answered accordingly.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4453
Issue No.-3 :-
In the light of findings recorded above the question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled ?
Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that keeping in view the long tenure of the workman, he should be
reinstated with back wages. He has referred to a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. passed in
W.A. No.- 1431/2018 and other connected writ appeals, in which a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court has
approved the Award of this Tribunal passed in the case of RC/09/2012 and other connected references, holding the
workman entitled to be reinstated with 50% of back wages with respect to the workman who had completed 10 years
of continuous engagement with the then State Bank of Indore as daily wager and their termination was found in
violation of the Act.
Learned Counsel for management has submitted that compensation may be in the interest of justice in the
case in hand because the workman was not appointed against a sanctioned vacancy following recruitment procedure
also that he has been in beneficial employment after termination of his services as shown in the statement of his
account for 2019-20 filed by management.
In the case in hand, the workman has been under engagement since 1997 till 2010, thus has completed more
than 10 years as daily wager. He has stated in his affidavit that he has been out of job after his disengagement. Every
person does make endeavor to survive it is not that only a street beggar will be considered a person out of job.
Relying on the Division Bench Judgment referred to above the workman in the case in hand is also held entitled to be
reinstated with 50% of back wages, payable to him within 30 days from the date of Award, failing which interest @
of 8% from the date of Award till payment.
Issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.
AWARD
Holding the action of management of Branch Manager State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch,
Sadar, Jabalpur/ Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal (MP) in
discontinuing the services of Arvind Rao S/o. Shri Basant Rao, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 31.08.2010 and not absorbing
him into State Bank of India from State Bank of Indore unjust invalid and unreasonable, the workman is
entitled to be reinstated with 50% of back wages, payable to him within 30 days from the date of Award,
failing which interest @ of 8% from the date of Award till payment. No order as to cost.
DATE: 06/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1915.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a2/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&41012@43@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.2/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central
Railway their workmen
[No. L-41012/43/2015-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
4454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/2/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Govind Prasad
S/o. Shri Ayodhya Prasad
R/o. H.No. 5206, Seth Govinddas Ward
Chandmari, Near Lalmati, Ghamapur
Jabalpur (M.P.)
Workman
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager
West Central Railway
Jabalpur (M.P.)
Management
(J U D G E M E N T)
(Passed on this 3rd day of September-2024)
As per letter dated 07/12/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
41012/43/2015/IR(B-I) dt. 07/12/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of management of Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Govind Prasad S/o. Shri Ayodhya Prasad, Ex. Porter w.e.f. 15.03.2002, is legal and
justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were served. Parties
appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.
According to the workman, he was first appointed in 1990 as Porter at Railway Station Deori. He remained
in service till 15.03.2002 i.e., the date of termination of his service by management without any departmental inquiry
against him on the ground of his alleged unauthorized and willful absence from duty in the year 2001. According to
him, he developed Peptic Ulcer for which he was under treatment in Railway Hospital and Victoria Hospital and it
was due to this reason he could not attend his duties in the year 2001, though he had duly informed the management
about his fact through his family members. The management issued a charge sheet but terminated his services vide
order dated 15.03.2002 without any inquiry, which is arbitrary and against law.
He prayed that setting aside his dismissal, he be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
Rebutting the allegations of the workman, management has taken a case in their written statement of defense
that the workman has been in the habit of wilfully absenting himself from duty without informing management and
getting leave sanctioned. According to management, he was earlier absent from duty from 30.03.1995 to 02.09.1996
for which he was issued a charge-sheet on 05.11.1996 and was punished with penalty of reduction to lowest stage in
the initial grade for a period of one year with cumulative effect after departmental inquiry. A second charge-sheet
issued against him on 22.09.1999 for the same charge with respect to his unauthorized absence from work in different
periods during 1998 and 1999. He was against punished with reduction to lowest stage in the same time scale for a
period of five years with cumulative effect after a departmental inquiry. It is further the case of management that
again charge-sheet was issued against him on 21.08.2001 for unauthorized absence from duty for various periods
from 15.02.2001 to 08.08.2001 (total 176 days). A departmental inquiry was conducted against him in which he was
given opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding the workman guilty of the
charge. Taking account of the charge proved as well previous service record, he was awarded penalty of removal from
service with immediate effect vide order of Competent Authority dated 15.03.2002. The workman did not raise any
dispute against his termination till 2016, hence according to management, his claim is barred by latches also.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4455
The workman has filed rejoinder in which he has mainly reiterated his claim. In evidence, the workman has
filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by management. He has filed RTI
document, obtained by him with respect to his service book and termination order.
Management has filed copy of termination order and charge-sheet certified by management official.
Management further file affidavit of its witness D.A. Alvi the Inquiry Officer who never turned up for cross
examination, thereafter the management filed affidavit of its other witness Mukesh Kumar. The workman did not
avail the opportunity of his cross examination, hence opportunity was closed.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Shri Rakesh Soni for the workman and Shri Gulab Suhane for
management. Both the sides have filed written arguments, I have gone through the written arguments as well the
record.
This case was earlier fixed for Award. Vide order dated 02.04.2024, management was directed to file the
original inquiry papers because at no stage these papers were on record. The management did not file inquiry papers
original or copy inspite of time given nor did file any affidavit in this respect.
The sole issue arises for determination in the case in hand is whether any departmental inquiry, just
and legal, was conducted before passing the termination order ?
The case of the workman is that after charge-sheet was issued to him, the management did not conduct any
departmental inquiry and passed the impugned order of punishment. The management has taken a case that
departmental inquiry was conducted.
In his cross examination on his affidavit the workman admits that he was issued a charge-sheet in 2002 for
unauthorized absence from duty but has specifically denied that any inquiry was conducted against him on the basis
of this charge-sheet. He further states that he never filed any application admitting the misconduct and seeking
apology. Management has filed a letter said to be written by the workman to the management in which he has
admitted the charge according to management and sought apology. When confronted with this letter, the workman has
denied having written this letter and having signed on this letter. It was on the part of management to prove this letter
which they did not do. Management did not care to file the inquiry papers inspite of specific direction by this Tribunal
nor has disclosed any reason for not filing it. This act of management leads to an adverse inference against
management that these papers were with held because either they did not exist or they would have militated against
the case of management. After all when there is a specific assertion by workman that he was terminated without
departmental inquiry, the burden lies on management to prove that inquiry was in fact conducted. I am constrained to
observe that the management has contested this case half heartedly.
In the light of above evidence, it is held that management could not prove that the workman was terminated
from service after a departmental inquiry.
The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1968, Part-III deals with penalties to the Railway
Servants. According to Rule 6 termination from service is a major penalty. Rule 7 prescribes the procedure for
imposing major penalty. According to this Rule no order imposing any major penalty under Rule 6 shall be made
except after an inquiry held, as for as maybe, in the manner provided in Rule 9 and Rule 10, or in the manner
provided in the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act 1850 where such inquiry is held under that Act.
In the light of above provisions and findings recorded above. The action of management in terminating the
service of the workman cannot be held legal and justified in law. The termination is liable to be set aside.
As regards, the relief the workman is entitled in the light of finding above noted, there is nothing on
record that the workman was out of job after his termination. The workman has also crossed the age of
superannuation on the date of Award. Hence, he is held not entitled to back wages but is held entitled to all the
consequential service and post retiral benefits.
Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-
A W A R D
Holding the action of management of Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur in
terminating the services of Shri Govind Prasad S/o. Shri Ayodhya Prasad, Ex. Porter w.e.f. 15.03.2002 against
law and unjustified, the workman is held entitled to all the in service and post retiral benefits except back
wages, deeming him to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation, payable to him within 30
days from the date of publication of the Award, failing which interest @ of 8% from the date of Award, till
payment. No order as to cost.
DATE:- 03/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
4456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1916.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a120/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&41012@16@2018&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 7th October, 2024
S.O. 1916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.120/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway their
workmen.
[No. L-41012/16/2018-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 18th September, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 120 / 2018
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400020
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Pratapnagar,
Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390004
3. The Director,
M/s Bharuch Dahej Railway Company Ltd.,
August Kranti Bhawan, 1st Floor, Bhikaji Cama Plac,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi – 110066
4. The Manager,
M/s Bharuch Dahej Railway Company Ltd., 304305,
Beline Building, 32, Ajitnagar Society, Nr. Urmi Cross Road,
Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390020
........
..... First Party
V/s
Shri Sikandarali Fakirbax Shaikh,
AT Kasba Street, At Jambusar,
Bharuch – 392150
..….…
.Second Party
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4457
For the First Parties
: None
For the Second Party
: Shri Lalit M. Patil
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/16/2018-IR (B-I) dated 30.10.2018 for
adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Bharuch Dahej Company Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri
Sikandarali Fakirbax Shaikh, Ex-Pointsman / Gateman w.e.f. 05.03.2018 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 15th November, 2018. The second party submitted statement
of claim on 11.03.2019. The case is listed for filing of written statement by the first parties.
2. The matter is taken up today. None present on behalf of the first parties. Shri L. M. Patil, Ld. Counsel for the
second party is present with his workman. He filed withdrawal application at Ex. 12. He also filed another
application at Ex. 13 mentioning that no objection of advocates for first parties has already been taken by
him on withdrawal application.
3. The application Ex. 12 is allowed. As the claim of the second party has been withdrawn by him, it is
established that there is no dispute between the parties.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1917.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जबिार ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa
औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV [a07 (C) of 2024] izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12025@01@2024&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½&219]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024
S.O. 1917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07 ( C ) of 2024 of the.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank
their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR(B-I)-219]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
Before The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
Reference Case No.:-07 (C) of 2024
Between the management of Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk,
Muzaffarpur-842001 And the General Secretary, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Federation & General
Secretary, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Officers Federation, MKGB SB & SSSS Limited, Darbhanga, South West
Corner of Harahi Pokhar, Near Railway Station Darbhanga, Post- Lalbag, Dist.- Darbhanga-846004.
For the management:- Sri Kuldeep Kumar Yadav, Senior Manager Law, UBGB.
4458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
For the workman:-
Sri Sri Niraj Kumar Choudhary, General Secretary.
Sri Ranjeet Prakash, General Secretary.
Sri Praveen Kumar, Working Director.
Present:- Manoj Shankar
Prisiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
A W A R D
Patna, dt- 10th September, 2024.
By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID(03)/2024/Dy CLC-Pt dated- 04/12.03.2024 the Govt. of India, Ministry
of Labour & Employment, Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Maurya Lok Complex, A Block,
2nd Floor, Room No.-6,16,& 17, Patna-800001 has referred under sub-section-(5) of the Section-12 read with Sub-
Section-(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the
following dispute between the management of the Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh
Chowk, Muzaffarpur-842001 And the General Secretary, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Federation & General
Secretary, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Officers Federation, MKGB SB & SSSS Limited, Darbhanga, South West
Corner of HarahiPokhar, Near Railway Station Darbhanga, Post- Lalbag, Dist.- Darbhanga-846004 for adjudication to
this tribunal:-
Schedule
(1)
“Whether the demand of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Federation and Uttar Bihar Gramin
Bank Officers Federation to implement Key allowance @ 1940 per month for assistants holding the
key of cash and safe and key allowance @ 1250 per month for all other office
assistants
employed in the bank with effect from 01.11.2017 is correct, legal and justified. If not, then what
relief the Federation is entitled to and from which date”?
(2)
“Whether the demand of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Federation and Uttar Bihar Gramin
Bank Officers Federation for payment of transport allowance to award staffs of the bank with effect
from 01.11.2017 is correct, legal and justified. It not, then what relief the Federation is entitled to and
from which date”?
(3)
“Whether the demand of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Federation and Uttar Bihar Gramin
Bank Officers Federation to implement Leased Accommodation facility in the Bank is correct, legal
and justified. If not, then what relief the Federation is entitled to”?
(4)
“Whether the demand of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Employees Federation and Uttar Bihar Gramin
Bank Officers Federation for abolition of existing transfer policy and creation of new transfer policy
based on the guidelines given by Government of India and in participation of the federation is correct,
legal and justified. If not, then what relief the Federation is entitled to”?
2.
This reference is received to this tribunal on 13.03.2024. Upon receiving the reference schedule, notice was
sent to both the sides accordingly both parties appeared through the representative on 31.07.2024 then they were
directed to file their of respective written statement fixing 02.09.2024. Record shows, on 02.09.2024 the
representative of the both the representative of the two workman / union filed a petition regarding redressal of their
dispute with the management with a note both the union decided not to proceed in this case and it is prayed necessary
order may kindly be passed. On this application the Mr. Rajesh Sahay learned counsel of the management bank also
reported to thistribunal the dispute of the workman / union is now resolved with the mutual understanding of the
management and the union and as well so “ No Dispute Award may kindly be passed.
3.
Considering the facts and submissions as advanced on behalf of the both the unions of the workmen and
management side, this tribunal finds that the grievance of the workman / union are settled by the mutual consent of
the workman / union and management i.e evident from the application filed by the representatives of the workman /
union, accordingly this tribunal has no option than to pass “ No Dispute Award. So “ No Dispute Award” is passed in
this case. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.
This is my award accordingly.
Dictated &Corrected by me.
Date :10.09.2024
MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4459
नई दिल्ली, 8 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1918.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a210/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12011@57@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024
S.O. 1918.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.210/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/57/2014-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 08th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 210/2014
Between:
The General Secretary,
All India Safai Amador Congress,
1382, Panajabgada,
Ramavaram-507118,
Khammam Dist.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Asst. General Manager,
SBI, Regional Office,
Kakinada
2. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Koti,
Hyderabad
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent: Shri Y. Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
4460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12011/57/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 29.09.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Kambalacheruvu Branch of East Godavari
District Andra Pradesh in terminating the service of Sri Vaddadi Subramanyam, part time Safai
Karmachari/Scavenger is fair, proper and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 210/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him,
the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has
not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 8th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1919.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a203/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12011@54@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024
S.O. 1919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.203/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/54/2014-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 08th day of July, 2024
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4461
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 203/2014
Between:
The General Secretary,
All India Safai Amador Congress,
1382, Panajabgada,
Ramavaram-507118,
Khammam Dist.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Asst. General Manager,
SBI, Regional Office,
Kakinada
2. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Koti,
Hyderabad
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y. Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12011/54/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 29.09.2014
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Peddapuram Branch of East Godavari
District Andra Pradesh in terminating the service of Smt. v. Durga, part time Safai Karmachari/Scavenger is
fair, proper and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 203/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded
to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner
has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 8th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
4462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 8 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1920.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a8/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12025@01@2024&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½&-220]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024
S.O. 1920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.8/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
their workmen
[No. L-12025/01/2024-IR(B-I)-220]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 9th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.8/2023
Between:
Sri V. Kirna Kumar,
C/o J Ventateswarlu
Aged 37 years, Occ: Senior Associate
PF No. 5084539, R/o. Plot No. 1,E Block,
H.No. 4-2-210, NDR plots,
Nellore-524002.
..…
.Petitioner
AND
1. The Asst. General Manager, (OAD)
LHO Amaravathi & Disciplinary Authority,
State Bank of India, Office Administration Department,
Amaravathi Local Head Office, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
2. The Deputy General Manager & CDO
State Bank of India, Gunfoundry-500001.
3. The General Manager (N.W.1)
Review Authority, State Bank of India
Gunfoundry-50001.
…
Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
Sri BKM Charkravarthy, Advocate
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4463
For the Respondent:
Sri T Sashi Kumar, Advocate
A W A R D
Sri V Kiran Kumar, who worked as Senior Associate (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents to set aside removal order No.
VIG/GNT/OAD/989 dated 18-01-2021 passed and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benfits.
2.
On the date fixed for hearing, Petitioner remained absent. Record reveals that Petitioner is not pursing the
proceedings since first date of hearing. Due to non-prosectuion and absence of Petitioner, case is dismissed for
default and a ‘No claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 9th day of July,
2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 8 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1921.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a16/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12011@02@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024
S.O. 1921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/02/2015-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 08th day of July, 2024
4464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 16/2015
Between:
The General Secretary,
All India Safai Amador Congress,
1382, Panajabgada,
Ramavaram-507118,
Khammam Dist.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Asst. General Manager,
SBI, Regional Office,
Kakinada
2. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Koti,
Hyderabad
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y. Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12011/02/2015 (IR(B-I)) dated 12.02.2015
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Tuni, Branch of East Godavari District
Andra Pradesh in terminating the service of Sri Y.Arjun, full time Safai Karmachari/Scavenger is fair, proper
and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 16/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded
to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner
has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 8th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4465
नई दिल्ली, 8 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1922.—औद्योडिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योडिक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योडिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (a17/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y&12011@03@2015&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024
S.O. 1922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.17/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
their workmen.
[No. L-12011/03/2015-IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 08th day of July, 2024
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 17/2015
Between:
The General Secretary,
All India Safai Amador Congress,
1382, Panajabgada,
Ramavaram-507118,
Khammam Dist.,
..….Petitioner
AND
1. The Asst. General Manager,
SBI, Regional Office,
Kakinada
2. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Local Head Office, Koti,
Hyderabad
… Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent:
Shri Y. Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate
4466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-12011/03/2015 (IR(B-I)) dated 12.02.2015
referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Pithapuram Branch of East Godavari
District Andra Pradesh in terminating the service of Sri Y.Saraswathi, Part time Safai Karmachari/Scavenger
is fair, proper and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 17/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded
to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner
has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 8th day of July, 2024.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1923.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/41/2011-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मडिकंदन. एन, उप डनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2024
S.O. 1923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/52/2011) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/10/2024.
[No. L-22012/41/2011 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4467
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2011
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..( Retd)
Secretary
Sanyukt Koyla Sangh (AITUC)
Pipariya Project, Umaria (MP)
Workman
Versus
The Chief General Manager
Johilla Area, SECL
Nowrozabad, Umaria (MP)
Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 12th day of September-2024.)
As per letter dated 13/06/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, made to this Tribunal
under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/41/2011/IR(CM-II) dt. 13/06/2011. The dispute
under reference related to :-
“Whether the action of management of the Johilla Area of SECL in not regularizing Sidhnath, Tracer
(the then General Mazdoor) to post of Works Supervisor, Civil in T & S Grade-D as recommended by
the Sub-Area Manager Umariya Sub-Area of SECL, from the date of recommendation i.e., 17.03.1993
is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled ?”
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
Admitted facts in short are that the workman Siddhnath Gandhi was appointed as General Mazdoor and was
selected to the post of Valve Attender in 1994. He was further promoted to Junior Tracer Grade-F on 29.07.1997. And
then to Tracer Grade-E on 05.08.2002. According to the workman though he was working as works supervisor with
the management. The regularization proposal of the workman was sent by a Committee of Officers of management
consisting of the Sub-Area Manager Umariya, Senior Executive Engineer Civil Umariya and Staff Officer Johilla to
the Deputy Chief Engineer Civil Johilla on 17.03.1993 but was not approved. This action has been challenged by the
workman union on the ground that it is against law, unjust and unfair labour practice on the part of management,
whereas the management has defended its action on the ground that there is no post of Work Supervisor Civil in the
cadre scheme of Tracers.
In evidence, the workman has not filed his affidavit. He has filed office order dated 26/29 January 1997 and
05.08.2002 admitted by management marked Ex. W/2 & W/1.
Management filed affidavit of its witness which is uncross examined. Management has filed the copy of Ex.
W/2 & W/1.
None appeared for workman at argument stage. Learned Counsel Mr. Neeraj Kewat for management
appeared and submitted his argument. I have gone through the record.
The reference itself is the issue for determination.
The initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union. The Implantation Instructions No.-28 which
deal with the cadre scheme, filed by management show that in the cadre scheme of drawing personnel, there are only
four posts which are Tracer, Junior Draughtsman, Draughtsman and Senior Draughtsman which are of Technical
Grade-E, D, C & B. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be held proved that there is a post of Work
Supervisor in the cadre. Since there is no post of work supervisor in the cadre scheme, the action of management in
not promoting/appointing/regularizing the workman Siddhnath Gandhi on this post of work supervisor cannot be held
to be unjust or illegal or arbitrary or unfair labour practice.
4468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence, holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against
the workman and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.
DATE: 12/09/2024
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1924.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम जलजमटेड. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
अिमिाबाि, ds iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/21/2022-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मडिकंदन. एन, उप डनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2024
S.O. 1924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Food Corportion of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09/10/2024.
[No. L-22012/21/2022 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present….
Radha Mohan Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer (I/c),
CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad
Dated 10th July, 2024
Reference (CGITA) No. - 59 / 2022
1. The Dy. Director,
Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhambe Lane,
New Delhi – 110001
2. The Executive Director (D),
Food Corporation of India, FCI New Building, Rajendra Nagar, Dattapada Road, Borivali (E), Mumbai –
400066
3. The General Manager,
Food Corporation of India, B/H Nataraj Cinema, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380009
4. The Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Kaligam, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad – 380005
First Party
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4469
V/s
The General Secretary,
Kamdar Hit Rakshak Union, 10, Jivida Complex, Near Cadila Railway Crossing, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad -
380050
Second Party
For the First Party and Second Party
:
None
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have in exercise of powers conferred by the
Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the
below mentioned dispute vide reference adjudication Order No. L-22011/21/2022-IR (CM-II) dated 09.11.2022
for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Food Corporation of India in not providing employment so far on
compassionate ground to Shri Vijaykumar Kantilal Doshi dependent son of Late Shri Kantilal A. Doshi, who
expired on 11.08.2022 due to accident in Ahmedabad while in service at Food Corporation of India, Sabarmati as
Ex-A.L., is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the dependent of the deceased workman concerned is
entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
1. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 28th November, 2022. The Ministry had directed the party
raising the dispute to file his statement of claim complete with relevant documents with the Tribunal within
15 days of receipt of this order of reference as per provision made under Rule 10 (B) of Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957. This order of reference had been sent to all the parties as well as this Tribunal through
registered post by the Ministry. Therefore, it is inferred that the same had been delivered to all the parties
including claimants.
2. A period of more than one and half years has been elapsed but none has appeared and filed the statement of
claim as directed and expected by the Ministry.
3. In considered opinion of this Tribunal, it is established that either the claimant of this dispute is not interested
to prosecute the claim or the said dispute is no more in existence.
4. It is therefore just & proper to pass an award considering “no dispute” between the parties.
5. The award is passed as above. The award be sent for publication U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
RADHA MOHAN CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer (I/c)
नई दिल्ली, 9 अक् तूबर, 2024
का.आ. 1925.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
–
सि
–
Je U;k;ky;] गोिावरी ानी ds iapkV (
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मडिकंदन. एन, उप डनदेशक
New Delhi, the 9th October, 2024
S.O. 1925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07/10/2024.
[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
4470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T. SRINIVASA RAO,
CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.
WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.
I.D.No. 28 of 2022
Between:-
Bogena @ Bongoni Rayamallu, S/o. Rajaiah, Age:59 Years, Occ:Ex-SCCL Employee, E.C.No.2857542, General
Mazdoor, ALP, APA, R/o.Q.No.ST2-2691, Shirke, Incline Colony, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District-505211.
….Petitioner/Workman
A N D
1.
The Director (PA & W), Appellate Authority, The SCC Ltd, Kothagudem Post & Mandal,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District-507 101.
2.
The Dy. General Manager, The SCC Ltd., Adriyala Project Area, Ramagundam Area-3,
Centenary Colony, Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapalli District-505 212.
3.
The General Manager, The SCC Ltd., Adriyala Project Area, Ramagundam Area-3,
Centenary Colony, Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapalli District-505 212.
4.
The Colliery Manager, The SCC Ltd., Adriyala Longwall Project, Ramagundam Area-3,
Centenary Colony, Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapalli District-505 212.
…. Respondents/Management
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Karunakar, Advocate for the
Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents and having been heard and having stood over
for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
-:A W A R D:-
This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act praying to set aside the dismissal order dt.24.07.2019 passed by the
Respondent No.3 and direct the Respondents’ Company to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service,
together with all attendant benefits and full back wages.
2.
The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-
2(a). The petitioner was appointed in the Respondents/SCCL, put in 32 years of service till his dismissal from service
on 02.08.2019 vide order dt.24.07.2019 by Respondent No.3. The Respondents have not followed the principles of
natural justice during enquiry into allegations leveled against the petitioner. Without furnishing documents to the
petitioner, it is very difficult for him to defend his case being an illiterate and disprove the allegation leveled against
him. The respondent No.3 dismissed the petitioner from service as per their whim and wish without following due
process of law, which is not tenable. The petitioner served more than 32 years with hard work and dedication. He
being an illiterate, does not have any technical knowledge in the law nor on the charge leveled against him. His wife
died on 25.11.2017 due to mental agony with regard to dismissal from service of the petitioner. He submitted appeal
dt.04.09.2019 to Respondent No.1, but did not take any action and he submitted representation dt.17.02.2020 with a
request to dispose the appeal, but, there is no response, which is not tenable in the eye of law.
2(b). The petitioner being an illiterate, he did not have any technical knowledge in the law or on the charge issues and
it is not correct to penalize him for the wrong done by others. He had no access to the computer or any of the
company record to tamper them. The charge sheet issued under company' standing order Nos. 25.1 and 25.14 are not
applicable to the petitioner and the charges framed against him are vague and created to cause harm to him. He had no
computer knowledge to make fraud or tamper the record and the respondents obtained signatures of petitioner and his
family members on blank papers and thereafter concluded the enquiry against the petitioner, which is not tenable in
the eye of law. He had put-in (32) years of service without any stigma on his character and he maintained
unblemished record throughout his service. Finally the petitioner got issued legal notice dt.21.02.2022 through his
counsel to the respondents, in which requested the respondent No.1 to take decision on the appeal dt.04.09.2019 filed
by the petitioner against dismissal from service, but there is no response till today.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4471
2(c). The respondent No.3 issued dismissal from service letter dt.24.07.2019 and the same was served on the
petitioner on 02.08.2019, in which he was dismissed from service with effect from 03.08.2019. The petitioner
submitted appeal dt.04.09.2019 which was forwarded by the Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.1 and also sent
through registered post and this petition is filed within the limitation. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to set-a-side the
dismissal from service letter dt.24.07.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 and direct the respondents company to
reinstate the petitioner/workman into service with continuity of service, all other attendant benefits and with full back
wages.
3. On the other side, the Respondents’/Company have submitted counter by admitting the employment of
Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents’-Company and inter-alia contended that petitioner was appointed in the
Respondents’ Company on 08.04.1987. He worked in the Respondent Company and was dismissed from the services
of the company with effect from 03.08.2019 vide Lr. No. RG3/PER/IR/48/DA-762/2465, dt.24.07.2019 for the
misconduct of dishonest intention and tampering of records. On receipt of the complaint from the DGM (IE)/RG
alleging that fake musters were posted, concerned authorities of Respondents’ Company took up investigation and
found that the attendance of the petitioner was manipulated by posting attendance in the place of absent musters for
the year 2013 to 2016. In the said checking by IT Department, it was found that the attendance of petitioner was
manipulated due to which the petitioner received excess salary than that of actual days of attendance put-in by him.
3(a). The details as to how the records were manipulated are that on receipt of complaint from DGM (IE), RG-II the
attendance date of the notification was checked on 29th August, 2016 in Muster Management System and SAP for the
month of August, 2016. On verification it has been found that day wise absents were uploaded from Muster
Management System to SAP from day wise extensible markup language (Coding language) files from 1st August,
2016 to 27th August, 2016 except 18th, 19th and 20th of August, 2016 days uploaded with attendance code. The month
end files which are generated on 28th of every month to upload any changes in back dated data also checked. On
verification, it has been found that all the absent codes are updated with attendance codes and control files to track the
transactions and updating the above date also were checked. As no date found in the track files, it is observed that the
data of petitioner was tampered by replacing the absents with attendance by connecting to backend. Unauthorized
person logged in remotely from SRP Area into the ALP Under Ground Mine Management System and corrected
absents musters into present musters and the details are filed as material papers before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Sri
Bogena Sridhar, Elder Son of the petitioner, who is Hired Programmer (Contract Basis) at SRP Area has logged in
remotely into the ALP Mine UGMMS and changed absents of the petitioner/workman into presents unauthorizedly.
3(b). Sri Bogena Sridhar is an unauthorized person to access or make changes in the ALP Mine UGMMS System and
Login details are filed as material papers. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued charge-sheet dt.26.09.2016 for his
misconduct under Company's Standing Orders No.25.1 & 25.14 which reads as follows:
25.1:
Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or
property.
25.14:
Tampering with the company’s records with ulterior motives.
A regular Domestic Enquiry was held on 24.10.2016, 03.11.2016, 14.11.2016, 01.04.2017, 03.04.2017 and
05.04.2017, petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry and he was given full & fair opportunity to defend the
charges leveled against him. During the enquiry, it is observed from the statement of Presenting Officer that the
number of musters of petitioner as per Lamp Room records and OM book are differing from 3/2013 to 8/2016. Even
though the petitioner Sri Rayamallu is illiterate, he would be aware of excess amount paid in monthly salary. But, he
never bothered to bring to the same to the notice of his Superiors about excess paid musters. Under disguise of his
illiteracy and ignorance, the petitioner tried to take shelter by not accepting that he received more wages than that of
actual wages. During cross-examination by Presenting Officer, it was pointed out that the petitioner has two sons viz.,
Sridhar (elder son) & Srikanth (younger son) and Sridhar is doing a Private Job and residing in Nagarjuna colony,
SRP area. Further, the petitioner confirmed that he knew about excess paid musters only after issue of charge-sheet to
him. As per statements of the Presenting Officer and petitioner in the enquiry, the cross-examination and submission
of the relevant documents it is clearly evident that petitioner was benefited by extra wages dishonestly and tampering
his masters in GMMS with the help of his son - Sri B. Sridhar who worked as hired programmer in SRP Area which
amounts to misconduct.
3(c). Further, as per the statement given by Sri Bogena Sridhar son of the petitioner, Hired Programmer (Contract
Basis) at SRP Area, he has accepted that he is logging to ALP mine computers remotely to see his father's musters,
though he denied the fact of adding musters to his father whenever he absented for duty. It was evident that musters of
petitioner were altered remotely as per remote login details. Enquiry Report was submitted by enquiry Officer holding
the Petitioner guilty of the misconduct/Charges. A Copy of Enquiry Proceedings and Enquiry report was sent to the
Petitioner vide 2nd Show cause Notice dt.07.11.2017 calling for his explanation on the enquiry. The said Notice was
received on dt.22.11.2017 but the Petitioner failed to submit any explanation. The Enquiry report and proceedings
were examined by Competent Authority, the same was concurred and the Petitioner was held guilty of misconduct as
the charges proved were grave and serious in nature. As such the Respondents’ Company was constrained to impose
4472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the penalty of dismissal from service vide Office Order dt.24.07.2019 dismissing the Petitioner from the service
w.e.f., 03.08.2019. The petitioner served for 32 years 3 months 25 days in the Respondents’ Company till the date of
dismissal his on 03.08.2019. The petitioner has preferred an appeal dt.04.09.2019 requesting to look into his case and
relieve him for the charges and the same is under consideration by the Competent Authority. There is no justification
in the Appeal submitted by petitioner to revoke the punishment of dismissal, as misconduct is grave and serious in
nature. The other allegations which are not specifically admitted herein are hereby denied and therefore, the
Respondents prayed to dismiss the petition, without granting any relief to the petitioner.
4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-10 and on the other side for the
Respondents’/Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-11 were marked, with consent of both parties.
5. Heard, the learned counsel for Petitioner/Workman as well as Standing Counsel for the Respondents/Company.
6.
Now the points for consideration are:-
1.
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent is held valid or not?
2.
Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on the
evidence?
3.
Whether the dismissal order dt.24.07.2019 is liable to be set aside, if so, the
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant
benefits and full back wages?
If not to what relief is the worker entitled to?”
7. From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents’ Company, these are the admitted facts that the
petitioner/ workman was working in the Respondents’/Company and he was dismissed from service. Now coming to
the documentary evidence of both sides, on behalf of the respondents’-company, Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-11 are marked,
wherein, Ex.M-1 is copy of letter addressed to GM(IT), KGM and Ex.M-2 is copy of letter addressed to GM(IT),
KGM along with the representation of B.Sridhar, Son of the Petitioner. Ex.M-3 is copy of letter from Director (P&P)
addressed to GM, ALP. Ex.M-4 is copy of documents regarding checking/ enquiry by Dy. Manager (IT). Ex.M-5 is
copy of Enquiry proceedings and Ex.M-6 is copy of charge sheet issued to the petitioner. Ex.M-7 is copy of Enquiry
Report and Ex.M-8 is copy of Enquiry report of enquiry commenced on 03.04.2017. Ex.M-9 is copy of Notice issued
to the petitioner and Ex.M-10 is copy of dismissal order. Ex.M-11 is copy of appeal by the petitioner before Director
(PA&W).
7(a).
On the other side, the petitioner/workman got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-10 on his behalf, wherein, Ex.W-1 is
Charge Sheet issued by Dy.GM, ALP to the petitioner and Ex.W-2 are the Domestic Enquiry Proceedings of the enquiry
officer. Ex.W-3 is request letter addressed by the petitioner to the General Manager, SCCL, Adriyala Project Area,
Ramagundam with a request to provide copies of exhibits marked during the course of enquiry. Ex.W-4 is Office Order
issued by General Manager, Adriyala Project Area dismissing the petitioner from service and Ex.W-5 request letter
addressed to the Director (PA & W), through proper channel by the petitioner for re-consideration of dismissal from service
and acknowledged by the office of Colliery Manager, Adriyala Long wall Project. Ex.W-6 is Postal receipt of Indian Post
and Ex.W-7 is acknowledgment card. Ex.W-8 is Postal receipt of Indian Post, Ex.W-9 is acknowledgment card and Ex.W-
10 are four Postal receipts. The above documents of both sides are not in much dispute by either side.
8. Here, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents’ company has strenuously argued that the petitioner was
dismissed from the services of the company with effect from 03.08.2019 by Office Order dt.24.07.2019 for
misconduct of dishonest intention, tampering of records and fake musters were posted. It has been found that day-
wise absents were uploaded through the Muster Management System to SAP through day wise extensible markup
language (Coding language) files. Further, it has been found that all the absent codes are updated with attendance
codes and it is observed that the data of the petitioner was tampered by replacing absents with attendance by
connecting to backend unauthorizedly. Unauthorized person Sri Bogena Sridhar, Elder Son of petitioner, Hired
Programmer (Contract Basis) at SRP has logged in remotely into ALP Mine UGMMS and changed absents of the
petitioner (his father) into presents and his Login details to access and make changes in the ALP Mine UGMMS
System were filed.
8(a). The learned Standing Counsel further strenuously argued that the petitioner has fully participated in the enquiry
and he was given full & fair opportunity to defend the charges. During enquiry, it was clearly proved that the number
of musters of petitioner as per Lamp Room records and OM book are differing from March 2013 to August 2016.
During cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that he got two sons viz., Sridhar (elder son) & Srikanth
(younger son) and Sridhar is doing a Private Job Hired Programmer (Contract Basis) at SRP Area and residing in
Nagarjuna colony, SRP area. Further, the petitioner confirmed that he knew about excess paid musters after issue of
charge-sheet to him. It is evident that the petitioner was benefited by extra wages dishonestly and by tampering his
masters in GMMS with the help of his son namely Sri B. Sridhar who worked as hired programmer in SRP Area
which amounts to serious misconduct. Further, Sri Bogena Sridhar son of the petitioner, Hired Programmer (Contract
Basis) at SRP Area has accepted that he is logging to ALP mine computers remotely to see his father's musters and it
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4473
is evident that musters of petitioner were altered remotely as per remote login details. Enquiry Report was submitted
by enquiry Officer holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges and he failed to submit any explanation. The Enquiry
report and proceedings were examined by Competent Authority, the same was concurred and Petitioner was held
guilty of serious misconduct as the charges proved were grave in nature. Hence, Respondents’ Company was
constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service w.e.f., dt.03.08.2019 by Office Order dt.24.07.2019, which is quite
justified. There is no justification in the Appeal of the petitioner to revoke the punishment of dismissal, as misconduct
is grave and serious in nature. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition without granting any relief to the
petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/workman contended the Respondents have not followed the
principles of natural justice during enquiry and without furnishing documents to the petitioner, it is very difficult for
him to defend his case being an illiterate. The respondent No.3 dismissed the petitioner from service without
following due process of law, which is not tenable. The petitioner being an illiterate, does not have any technical
knowledge in the law nor on the charge leveled against him. His wife died on 25.11.2017 due to mental agony with
regard to dismissal from service of the petitioner and it is not correct to penalize him for the wrong done by others. He
had no access to the computers or any other records of company to tamper them. The charge sheet issued under
company' standing order Nos. 25.1 and 25.14 are not applicable to the petitioner and the charges framed against him
are vague and created to cause harm to him. He had no computer knowledge to make fraud or tamper the record and
the respondents obtained signatures of petitioner and his family members on blank papers and thereafter concluded
the enquiry against the petitioner. He had put-in 32 years of service and he maintained unblemished record
throughout his service, but, the respondent No.3 dismissed him from service with effect from 03.08.2019 illegally and
his appeal dt.04.09.2019 was not disposed till today, which is quite unjust and illegal.
9(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the petitioner is a poor man, even as per the enquiry
proceedings the petitioner worked for 11 days in July 2016 but received wages for 26 days i.e., excess received 15
days wages only which is only an assumption and presumption. No authentic records are filed by the respondents to
substantiate the allegation of tampering of musters and receiving excesses wages by the petitioner. Further, the date of
birth of the petitioner is 12.02.1963 as per SCCL records and he attained the superannuation age of 61 years by
29.02.2024 and no other source of getting job at anywhere. He is the only one earning person in is family and having
children and now idle, suffering badly and facing untold financial problems. He rendered continuous service of more
than (32) years and this is a first dismissal case and there is no remark in his work. The punishment of dismissal from
service is highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate. This court has wide powers U/Sec.11-A of the I.D. Act to
grant every relief to the petitioner and hence, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order and direct the respondents
company to pay full back wages, retirement benefits and pension benefits to the petitioner with all attendant benefits
and continuity of service, as he already attained superannuation age of 61 years.
POINT No.1:
10. In this matter, initially the petitioner/workman denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report. But on
20.06.2024, the learned counsel for petitioner filed Memo U/Sec.11-A of I.D Act by accepting the procedure of
domestic enquiry to be fair and valid. Hence, there is no dispute that the Enquiry Officer has followed the principles
of natural justice. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the facts of the case and the findings
are not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion with regard to
finding guilty or not based on evidence. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.
POINT No.2 & 3:
11. In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as Respondents/corporation as well as in view of the
rival arguments of their respective counsel now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the
petitioner was dismissed from service by Proc. dt.24.07.2019. From a perusal of the record, it shows that Charge
Sheet dt.26.09.2016 was issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-6. It appears from the charge sheet that
the petitioner managed to alter his musters in the UGMMS and on verification of his musters with Lamp Room
records and Over-man book, it was observed that the petitioner drawn wages for more number of days than that of
actual days worked during the period from March 2013 to August 20167. Further, the petitioner did not brought to
the notice of his superiors about the excess paid and committed fraud and tampering company’s records with
ulterior motive, which is a serious misconduct under Company's Standing Orders No.25.1 & 25.14 which reads as
follows:
25.1:
Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or
property.
25.14:
Tampering with the company’s records with ulterior motives.
4474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11(a). Further letter dt.30.08.2016 addressed by the General Manager/SRP is marked as Ex.M-1, wherein it shows
that Sri B.Sridhar, Hired programmer working as SRP area, unauthorizedly logged into the ALP mine computer
system remotely from SRP Area. The vigilance department has made discrete enquiry regarding his unauthorized acts
of remote long-in and Sri B.Sridhar admitted that he has made remote long-in to find out the attendance details of his
father Sri B.Rayamallu/petitioner, who is working at ALP mine as General Mazdoor. He further informed that his
father is regular drinker, irregular to duty and staying at 8-Incline colony. Further, report dt.02.09.2016 of the General
Manager, SRP along with representation of hired programmer is marked as Ex.M-2, wherein it shows that a statement
of Sri B.Sridhar who is son of petitioner was recorded on 31.08.2016; he was instructed not to attend duty at SCCL
with immediate effect from 01.09.2016 by the outsourcing agency (Jyothi computers).
11(b). Further, detailed enquiry was ordered to be conducted into the case by the Director (P&P) vide letter
dt.09.09.2016 which is marked as Ex.M-3. The Dy.Manager (IT) report dt.20.09.2016 and logged-in details by the
hired programmer are marked as Ex.M-4, wherein it shows that son of the petitioner who is working as Hired
Programmer logged into the database from remove system, which is evident from computer name, user name, IP
address and Time stamp; and deletion of “Absent” records was taken place from Flat file track data during the period
from 2013 to 2016 in respect of the petitioner/B.Rayamallu. Basing on the above documentary evidence, the
petitioner was issued charge sheet dt.26.09.2016 which is marked as Ex.M-6/Ex.W-1.
12. Apart from the above, the proceedings of domestic enquiry dt.24.10.2016 are marked as Ex.M-5/Ex.W-3,
wherein, it shows that the petitioner/workman and Sri D.Ravindra Kumar, S.E/ Presenting Officer were examined at
length. It appears from the enquiry statement of Sri D.Ravindra Kumar, Presenting Officer that on verification of
musters of the petitioner/B.Rayamallu, General Mazdoor, it was found that the number of musters as per Lamp Room
records and Over-man Book are differing and the petitioner has managed to tamper the company’s records and the
muster records from March 2013 to August 2016. Further, the petitioner was having two sons namely, Sridhar and
Srikanth. The elder son Sridhar is working as Hired Programmer in SRP who managed to connect remotely to ALP
computer to back hack his father’s musters and tracking. Thus, the action of the petitioner amounts to dishonesty and
tampering of UGMMS records with the connivance of his son with ulterior motive, which amounts to misconduct
under the company’s standing orders.
12(a). Further, it is evident from the enquiry statement of the petitioner that he is illiterate employee and he usually
book his musters in man-way daily and go for his entrusted job. He deposed that he received the wages for the days
he worked and he never seen his pay slip and not noticed any excess musters. He further deposed that change in
UGMMS is not known to him and that there is every possibility of occurrence of mistakes in computers some times.
He clearly deposed that wages will be paid as per the musters booked in UGMMS but not lamp room or OM Records.
The petitioner admitted that he has two sons i.e., Sridhar (elder son) and Srikanth (younger son) and Sridhar is doing a
private job and Srikanth is studying. To a question as to where Sridhar is working, the petitioner replied that his
working company and place are not known to him. Further to another question that his elder son Sridhar is working as
computer hired programmer in SRP Area in the SCCL, the petitioner replied that he don’t know his job and place of
work. Further the petitioner deposed that only after issuing charge sheet, he noticed that he received excess paid
wages and earlier it was not known to him. He further deposed that he does not know whether he was paid excess
wages or less wages. The Presenting Officer produced letter dt.31.08.2016 of son of the petitioner Sridhar, Hired
Programmer, addressed to AGM, IE, SRP Area and letter dt.20.09.2016 addressed to the chief of vigilance by
Smt.R.V.Rajyalaxmi, Dy. Manager, IT.
12(b). The Enquiry Report dt.06.05.2017 is marked as Ex.M-10, wherein, the Enquiry Officer concluded that based
on the enquiry statements of the petitioner, Presenting Officer and documents produced during enquiry, the petitioner
benefited by extra wages dishonestly and tampering his musters in UGMMS with the help of his son which amounts
to misconduct under company’s standing orders 25(1) & 25(14) and the charges were proved against the petitioner
basing on record. Hence, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct leveled against him vide charge
sheet dt.26.09.2016. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the charges leveled against the
petitioner/workman are proved and misconduct of the workman is established basing on the evidence and the findings
of enquiry officer are not perverse. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents/company has no axe to grind against
the petitioner.
13. Here, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Petitioner/Workman served the respondents’
company for more than (32) years and this is his 1st time dismissal from service. He hails from a very poor family and
has got no other livelihood and facing untold financial problems. The extreme punishment of dismissal from service is
shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and hence, he prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of
I.D., Act. Further, as the petitioner retired from service on attaining 61 years superannuation age, full back wages may
be granted to him with all attendant benefits and continuity of service, besides retirement and pension benefits.
13(a). In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has relied on the following
decisions:
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4475
1)
JUDGMENT OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH AT BILAPUR REPORTED IN 2024 0
CGHC 166 – Between: Arun Kumar Vs. Coal India Limited, & ors:
Wherein their Lordships held that: The termination order was passed in the year 1995, therefore, it is
directed that the petitioner will be reinstated into service without back wages but his pay will be fixed
notionally, he will be entitled to get gratuity and all other service benefits permissible under rules of
company as he has attained the age of superannuation during pendency of writ petition, his services will
be counted for grant of pensionary benefits under the Coal Mines Provident Fund applicable to the
petitioner.
2)
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN AIR 1988 SC 303 – Between: Scooter India
Ltd, Labour Court, Lucknow & ors:
Labour Court holding that enquiry had conformed to statutory prescriptions and principles of natural
justice; and yet holding that order of termination was not justified and reinstating employee with 75%
back wages. Wide powers are vested in Labour Court or Tribunal. Labour Court can temper justice with
mercy and give an opportunity to an erring workman to reform himself. Order of Hon’ble Labour Court
granting relief of reinstatement with 75% back wages upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
With due respect to the above cited decisions, the facts and circumstances of the above cited Judgments are different
from the facts of the present case on hand. Further, as per the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions, Labour
Court or Industrial Tribunal shall consider the question as to whether the punishment imposed on a workman is
disproportionate to the charges of misconduct or not; and this Tribunal is adhering to the ratio laid down in the above
cited decisions, with regard to the proportionality theory.
14. Here, it is clearly evident from the record that the petitioner served for 32-years 3-months 25-days till the date of
his dismissal from service. It is also not in dispute that the appeal dt.04.09.2019 preferred by the petitioner is not
disposed-off and the respondents contend that the same is under consideration by the competent authority. Further,
the number of musters tampered in UGMMS with the help of son of the petitioner and the amount of extra wages
benefited by the petitioner by tampering his musters in UGMMS, was not brought on record by the
respondents’/company. During enquiry, the Presenting Officer suggested to the petitioner that he worked for 11-days,
he received wages for 26-days and excess wages paid for 15-days during July 2016; and the said suggestion was
denied by the petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was produced before this Tribunal which would go to
show the quantum of tampered musters and excess paid wages to the petitioner, and the reasons there-of are best
known the respondents’ company. In view of the above facts and mitigating circumstances of the case, this Tribunal
is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise its discretion U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act and relying upon a
decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), wherein their lordships observed that:
“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted
keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of
the Constitution. Merely because workman approached to Labour Court with delay, relief cannot be
denied. No indication in the Act that delay extinguishes right conferred on the workmen under
Industrial Law. The Labour Court is conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A. The Industrial
Court conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A of the Act for granting appropriate relief”.
14(a). Here, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in WPC No.9925/09 and 556/09 observed that: “The
most satisfactory ideal, I have ever been able to form of justice is embodied in the picture of a Judge, courageous
enough ‘to give the devil his due’, whether he be in the right or in the wrong”. Thomas Moore said: If the parties will,
at my hand call for justice, then whether if my father stood on the one side and the devil on the other (his cause being
good), the devil should have the right.” Further, one must not hesitate to give the devil his due and every act ought not
to be viewed to an act of misconduct giving rise to departmental enquiry justifying the punishment.
14(b). Further, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a case rendered on 04.05.1994, Between:
Management of Glaxo India Ltd., Vs. State of Assam and 3 others categorically observed that “a Labour Court is
required to settle a dispute according to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and law
without attaching undue importance to legal technicalities”.
15. Therefore, in view of the above cited decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case, if we come to
quantum of punishment, it is settled law that the discretion of which can be exercised U/Sec.11-A is available only on
the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to shock the
conscience of the Court, or existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the punishment,
or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In view of the
mitigating circumstances of the present case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the extreme punishment of removal
from service imposed by the respondents’/corporation against the petitioner/workman is harsh, disproportionate and
shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Hence, deserves to be modified since the disciplinary authority cannot be
permitted to act arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and it cannot be allowed a fight between David and Goliath
4476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :OCTOBER 12, 2024/ASIVNA 20, 1946
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as in the present case on hand. Moreover, facts of this case attracts the proverbial saying “Every saint has a past and
every sinner has a future”.
16. At this juncture, it is not out of place to mention a small write-up of mine with regard to “servant-master
relationship”, as under:-
“A Servant of Noble Character
1.
A servant of Noble character is worth far more than rubies.
2.
His master has full confidence in him and lacks nothing of value.
3.
He brings him good, not harm, all the days of his service.
4.
He sets about his work vigorously and works with eager hands.
5.
His master is respected in the public and before his higher ups.
6.
He is clothed with strength and dignity.
7.
He can laugh at the days to come.
8.
He is faithful and wise.
9.
He watches over the affairs of his branch and does not eat the bread of idleness.
10
His colleagues arise and call him blessed; his master also praises him “Many
servants do Noble things but you surpass them all”.
11.
Honour him for all that his hands have done, and let his woks bring him praise in
the department.”
17. This Tribunal has perused, analyzed and meditated upon the case at hand, the case laws and principles of law
referred above. In view of the above facts and circumstances and keeping in view of the principle “temper justice with
mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment of removal from service
imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate and shocks the conscience of this Tribunal and hence, it deserves to be
modified appropriately. Further, the petitioner rendered long service of 32-years 3-months 25-days in respondents’
company. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner shall be treated as he was retired from
service with continuity of service only, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits since the
petitioner might have gainfully employed during the intervening period from his dismissal till superannuation.
Consequently, the petitioner/workman is entitled to retirement benefits and pensionary benefits only with continuity
of service only and it shall not be counted for any other purpose, after deducting 15-days excess wages paid to the
petitioner for July 2019. Denial of entire back wages and all attendant benefits from the date of his dismissal to till the
date of his retirement on superannuation would be sufficient punishment to the petitioner/workman. Hence, the
extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Respondents’/Company is hereby modified
appropriately. Accordingly, the Points 2 & 3 are answered.
18.
IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order dt.24.07.2019 under Ex.M-10 passed
by the Respondent No.3 is hereby modified. The respondents’/company is directed to treat the petitioner/workman
retired from service on attaining the superannuation age on 29.02.2024, with continuity of service only. The
petitioner/workman is not entitled to any attendant benefits and any back wages during the intervening period from
the date of his dismissal to till his retirement from service on superannuation. The respondents’ company is directed
to pay all consequential retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner with continuity of service only and it shall
not be counted for any other purpose, after deducting 15-days excess wages for July 2019. Copy of the Award be sent
to the appropriate Government for publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of September,
2024.
Dr.T. SRINIVASA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN:-
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
-Nil-
-Nil-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : अक् तूबर 12, 2024/आजिन 20, 1946
4477
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR WORKMAN:-
Ex.W-1
Dt.
26.09.2016
Charge Sheet issued by Dy.GM, ALP to the petitioner.
Ex.W-2
Dt.
24.10.2016
Domestic Proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer.
Ex.W-3
Dt.
31.07.2018
Request letter addressed by petitioner to the General Manager,
SCCL, Adriyala Project Area, Ramagundam with a request to
provide copies of exhibits marked during the course of enquiry.
Ex.W-4
Dt.
24.07.2019
Office Order issued by General Manager, Adriyala Project Area –
dismissal order.
Ex.W-5
Dt.
04.09.2019
Request letter addressed to the Director (PA&W) appellant authority
for re-consideration of dismissal from service and acknowledged by
Colliery Manager, Adriyala Long wall Project.
Ex.W-6
Dt.
18.11.2019
Original Postal receipt of Indian Post.
Ex.W-7
Dt.
-
Acknowledgment card.
Ex.W-8
Dt.
21.02.2020
Postal receipt of Indian Post.
Ex.W-9
Dt.
24.02.2020
Acknowledgment card.
Ex.W-10
Dt.
23.02.2022
Postal receipts addressed to respondents-employer (4).
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
Ex.M-1
Dt.
30.08.2016
Attested Copy of letter addressed to GM(IT), KGM
Ex.M-2
Dt.
02.09.2016
Attested Copy of letter addressed to GM(IT), KGM along with the
representation of B.Sridhar, S/o. Petitioner
Ex.M-3
Dt.
09.09.2016
Attested copy of letter from Director ( P&P) addressed to
GM, ALP
Ex.M-4
Dt.
20.09.2016
Attested copy of documents regarding checking/Enquiry by Dy.
Manager (IT)
Ex.M-5
Dt.
24.10.2016
Attested Copy of Enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-6
Dt.
26.09.2016
Attested copy of Charge sheet issued to the petitioner vide
Lr.No.APA/ALP/ R6/2069
Ex.M-7
Dt.
06.05.2017
Attested Copy of Enquiry report
Ex.M-8
Dt.
06.05.2017
Attested Copy of Enquiry report of enquiry commenced on
03.04.2017
Ex.M-9
Dt.
06.05.2017
Attested
copy
of
Notice
issued
to
the
petitioner
vide
Lr.No.RG3/PER/IR]48 /DA-762/3197
Ex.M-10
Dt.
24.07.2019
Attested Copy of dismissal order vide Lr.No.RG3/PER/IR/48/DA-
762/ 2465
Ex.M-11
Dt.
04.09.2019
Attested copy of appeal by the petitioner before Director (PA&W).
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Date: 2024.10.22 08:56:51 +05'30'