6821 GI/2024

(4729)

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. 43]

नई दिल् ली, अक् तूबर 27—नवम्बर 2, 2024, िजनवार/ कार्तिक 5—कार्तिक 11, 1946

No. 43]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 27— NOVEMBER 2, 2024, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 5– KARTIKA 11, 1946

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2014.—केंद्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में जवद्युत मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलजखत कायािलयों, जिनके

80 प्रजतित कमिचारीवृंि ने हिंिी का कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै:

पावर जिड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड

िौलिीबी उपकेंद्र, 400/220 के.वी. िी.आई.एस.,

िाम-बगड़ीिाट, पो-अस्ट्कोट, िौलिीबी,

जिला-जपथौरागढ़, उत्तराखंड - 262543

पावर जिड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड

400/220 केवी सोिावल उपकेंद्र

िाम- अजख्तयारपुर (लोजिया पुल के पास)

तिसील- रुिौली, भेलसर, जिला- अयोध्या

उत्तर प्रिेि- 224116

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08112024-258530

CG-DL-W-08112024-258530

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08112024-258530

CG-DL-W-08112024-258530

4730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पावर जिड कॉपोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड

िािििााँपुर

400/220 के.वी.

उपकेंद्र,

िाम-

िमुका, एन.एच.-24 के 336 दक.मी. से 336

दक.मी. के बीच, सीतापुर रोड, जिला- िािििााँपुर,

उत्तर प्रिेि– 242306

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्विसेज़ जलजमटेड

बंगाल ईको-इंटेजलिेंट पाकि ईएम-3,

10वीं मंजिल, साल्ट लेक, सेक्टर-v

कोलकाता - 700091

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्विसेज़ जलजमटेड

एससीओ-40, प्रथम तल, सेक्टर-7 सी,

मध्य मागि, चंडीगढ़ – 160019

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्विसेज़ जलजमटेड

ओपीडी जबहल्डंग (प्रथम तल), (एफ़एफ़पी),

िैवी इंिीजनयररंग कॉपोरेिन (एचईसी),

िुवाि, रांची – 834004

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्विसेज़ जलजमटेड

तृतीय तल, नॉथि ब्लॉक, बुद्ध भवन म्युजनजसपल

कॉम्प्लेक्स, एमिी रोड, रानीगंि, जसकंिराबाि –

500003

एनिी एदफजिएंसी सर्विसेज़ जलजमटेड

द्वार. सं. 59ए-18/1-5ए, तृतीय तल,

श्री प्लाज़ा, टीचसि कॉलोनी, पटामाता,

जवियवाड़ा - 520008

एनएचपीसी जलजमटेड,

लोकतक पावर स्ट्टेिन,

कोंकेराप, पीओ– लोकतक, जिला- चुराचांिपुर,

मजणपुर- 795124

10.

एनएचपीसी जलजमटेड,

दकिनगंगा पावर स्ट्टेिन,

िाम- करालपोरा, गुरेि रोड,

पो- बांिीपोरा, जिला- बांिीपोरा

िम्मू व कश्मीर- 193502

[फा.सं. 11011/01/2024-हिन्दी]

िीरि कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, मुख्य अजभयंता (प्रभारी रािभाषा)

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2024

S.O. 2014.––In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices under the administrative control

of Ministry of Power, wherein 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:

Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited

Jauljibi Substation, 400/220 KV G.I.S.,

Vill-Bagdihaat, PO- Askote, Jauljibi,

Dist.- Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand-262543

Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited

400/220 KV Sohawal Substation, Vill-

Akhtiyarpur (Near Lohiyapul), Tehsil- Rudauli,

Bhelsar, Distt- Ayodhya

Uttar Pradesh - 224116

Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited,

400/220 KV Substation, Shahjahanpur, Village-

Jamuka, between Km. 336&336 of N.H.-24,

Sitapur Road, Distt- Shahjahanpur, UP - 242306

Energy Efficiency Services Limited

Bengal Eco-Intelligent Park, EM-3, 10th Floor,

Salt Lake, Sector-V

Kolkata-700091

Energy Efficiency Services Limited

SCO- 40, First Floor, Sector- 7 C,

Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160019

Energy Efficiency Services Limited

OPD Building (First Floor), (FFP), Heavy

Engineering Corporation (HEC), Dhurwa,

Ranchi – 834004

Energy Efficiency Services Limited

3rd

Floor,

North

Block,

Buddha

Bhavan

Municipal Complex, MG Road, Rani Ganj,

Secunderabad - 500003

Energy Efficiency Services Limited

D. No. 59A-18/1-5A, 3rd Floor, Shree Plaza,

Teachers Colony, Patmata,

Vijayawada – 520008

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4731

NHPC Limited

Loktak Power Station, Komkeirap, PO- Loktak,

Distt- Churachandpur,

Manipur - 795124

10.

NHPC Limited

Kishanganga Power Station, Vill- Karalpora,

Gurez Road, PO- Bandipora, Distt- Bandipora,

Jammu & Kashmir – 193502

[F. No. 11011/01/2014–Hindi]

DHIRAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Chief Engineer (In-Charge O.L.)

पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक् तूबर, 2024

का. आ. 2015 —केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अििन)

अजिजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की िारा 6 की उपिारा (1) के अिीन िारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेरोजलयम और

प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे िी गई अनुसूची में यथा-उजल्लजखत तारीखों एवं का. आ. संख्या द्वारा उन अजिसूचनाओं से

संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अििन दकया गया था।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 6 की उपिारा (4) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त

भूजमयो में जवल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अजिकार एचपीसीएल रािस्ट्थान ररफाइनरी जलजमटेड, (रािस्ट्थान) में जनजित

दकया गया था।

और सक्षम प्राजिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार क¨ ररपोटि िे िी िै दक कच्चा आइल के पररविन के जलए रािस्ट्थान राज्य

में एचपीसीएल रािस्ट्थान ररफाइनरी जलजमटेड, (रािस्ट्थान) की मंगला क्रूड आइल पाईपलाईन पररयोिनान्तगित मंगला

केयनि टर्मिनल से पचपिरा ररफाईनरी तक कच्चा तेल की पाइपलाइन जबछाईं िा चुकी िै, अतः उस भूजम के बारे में जिसका

संजक्षप्त जववरण इस अजिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट दकया गया िै, ऐसे प्रचलन को रािस्ट्थान राज्य में समाप्त

दकया िाए।

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अििन), 1963

के जनयम 4 के उप -जनयम (1) के अंतगित िी गई पररभाषा (1) के अंतगित उस तारीख को जिस दिन पर यि अजिसूचना

भारत सरकार के रािपत्र में प्रकाजित िोती िै, रािस्ट्थान राज्य के बाड़मेर जिले की बाड़मेर और बालोतरा (पुरानी नाम

बाड़मेर) जिले की बायतु, जगडा एवं पचपिरा तिसील के जनम्नसूजचत गााँवों के भूजम में मागािजिकार गजतजवजियों की

समाजप्त की तारीख के रूप में घोषणा करती िै।

अनुसूची

क. सं.

6(1) अजिसूचना की का. आ. संख्या एवं

दिनांक

गााँव का नाम

तिसील

जिला: बाड़मेर राज्य: रािस्ट्थान

3501 (अ) दिनांक 05/10/2020

नागाणा

बाड़मेर

780 (अ) दिनांक 17/02/2021

सरकापार

307 (अ) दिनांक 19/01/2024

काऊ का खेडा

जिला: बाड़मेर (वतंमन नाम बाललोतरा) राज्य: रािस्ट्थान

3498 (अ) दिनांक 05/10/2020

िोगासर कुआ

बायतु

3499 (अ) दिनांक 05/10/2020

बांडातालर

780 (अ) दिनांक 17/02/2021

छीतर का पार

307 (अ) दिनांक 19/01/2024

सागरोंमोणी सारणो की ढाणी

लापला

िेरामाणीयो की ढाणी

4732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

क. सं.

6(1) अजिसूचना की का. आ. संख्या एवं

दिनांक

गााँव का नाम

तिसील

काकडो व बनोजणयो मूढो की ढाणी

माहिंगाणी मूढो की ढाणी

मीरठयातला

सांवलसर

बायतु जचमनिी

िेरामोणी पोटजलयो की ढाणी

पिमोणी गोिारो की ढाणी

पीरावास

खेमोणी मुढो की ढाणी

रोजिया नाडी

3503 (अ) दिनांक 05/10/2020

झालामजलया

जगडा

3502 (अ) दिनांक 05/10/2020

खट्टु

पचपिरा

3499 (अ) दिनांक 05/10/2020

बडला

780 (अ) दिनांक 17/02/2021

िूिवा मलीनाथ

307 (अ) दिनांक 19/01/2024

नीम्बली

बागुण्डी

गूगरी

आकडली िनहसंि

आकडली बक्सीराम

सांभरा

[फा. सं. आर-11025/1/2019-ओआर-I/ई-31849]

िजि िेखर हसंि, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2024

S.O. 2015.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, S.O. Numbers and dated as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub-section (i) of Section 6,

Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government acquired the Right of User in the said lands specified in the schedule appended to those notifications;

And whereas, in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government vested the Right of User in the lands free from all encumbrances in the HPCL Rajasthan Refinery Ltd;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline has

been laid in the said lands and hence the operation may be terminated for Mangala Crude Oil Pipeline from Mangala

Cairn Terminal to Pachpadra Refinary in the state of Rajasthan in respect of the said land which in brief are specified

in the Schedule annexed to this Notification;

Now, therefore, as required under Explanation 1 of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules1963, the Central Government hereby declare the date on which the

notification is published in the Gazette of India as the date of “Termination of Operation” in ROU in the villages

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4733

mentioned in Tehsil: Barmer of District: Barmer and Tehsil: Baitu, Gida and Pachpadra of District: Balotra (Previous

name Barmer) in the State of Rajasthan.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

6 (1) Notifications S.O. No. and

Date

Name of the Village

TEHSIL

DISTRICT: BARMER STATE : RAJASTHAN

3501(E) Dtd. 05/10/2020

NAGANA

BARMER

780 (E) Dtd. 17/02/2021

SAR KA PAR

307 (E) Dtd. 19.01.2024

KAVU KA KHEDA

DISTRICT : BARMER (PRESENT NAME BALOTRA) STATE : RAJASTHAN

3498 (E) Dtd. 05/10/2020

JOGASAR KUVA

BAITU

3499 (E) Dtd. 05/10/2020

BANDATALAR

780 (E) Dtd. 17/02/2021

CHHITAR KA PAAR

307 (E) Dtd. 19.01.2024

SAGROMONI SARNO KI DHANI

LAPLA

DERAMANIYO KI DHANI

KAKDO VA BANONIYO MUDHO KI DHANI

MAHINGANI MUDHO KI DHANI

MITHIYATALA

SANVALSAR

BAITU CHIMANJI

DERAMONI POTALIYO KI DHANI

PADMONI GODARO KI DHANI

PIRAWAS

KHEMONI MUDHO KI DHANI

ROJIYA NADI

3503 (E) Dtd. 05/10/2020

ZALAMALIYA

GIDA

3502 (E) Dtd. 05/10/2020

KHATTU

PACHPADRA

3499 (E) Dtd. 05/10/2020

BADLA

780 (E) Dtd. 17/02/2021

DUDHVA MALINATH

307 (E) Dtd. 19.01.2024

NIMBLI

BAGUNDI

GUGARI

AAKADLI DHANSINH

AAKADLI BAKSIRAM

SAMBHARA

[F. No. R-11025/1/2019-OR-I/E-31849]

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

4734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य णवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 29 अक् तूबर, 2024

आ. 2016.––केन्द्रीय सरकार, णियाात (गुिवत्ता णियंत्रि एंव णिरीक्षि) अणिणियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की

िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ पठित णियाात (गुिवत्ता णियंत्रि एंव णिरीक्षि) णियम, 1964 के णियम 12, के उपणियम

(2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शणियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससा एमएलएस इंस्पेक्शि प्राइवेट णलणमटेड णलणमटेड, प्लॉट - एफ/17,

ब्लॉक-एफ, दूसरी मंणिल, दुगााचक कॉलोिी, पी.ओ/पी.एस-दुगााचक, हणददया-721602, णिला- पूवा मेददिीपुर, पणिम

बंगाल (णिसे एतद्पिात उि अणभकरि कहा िायेगा), को इस अणिसूचिा के रािपत्र में प्रकाशि की तारीख से तीि वर्ा

के णलए, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की शासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाणशत भारत सरकार की अणिसूचिा के साथ अिुसूची में जनर्ििष्ट

ददिांक 20 ददसम्बर, 1965 की अणिसूचिाकी सं॰का.आ. 3975 तथा के तहत प्रकाणशत अणिसूचिा में उपाबद्ध अिुसूची में

णवणिर्दाष्ट खणिि और अयस्क समूह-।, अथाात, लौह अयस्क, के णियाात से पूवा णिम्नणलणखत शतों के अिीि हणददया पत्ति में

उि खणिि और अयस्क के णिरीक्षि करिे के णलए एक अणभकरि के रुप में मान्द्यता देती है, अथाात ्‌ :

(i) यह अणभकरि, खणिि और अयस्क समूह-। का णियाात (णिरीक्षि) णियम, 1965 के णियम 4 के अिीि णिरीक्षि की

पद्धणत की िााँच करिे के णलये णियाात णिरीक्षि पठरर्द द्वारा णिणमत्त अणिकाठरयों को पयााप्त सहयोग और सहायता प्रदाि

करेगी;

(ii) यह अणभकरि, इस अणिसूचिा में यथा जवजनर्ििष्ट अपिे कायो का णिष््‌पादि करिे के णलए, णिदेशक (णिरीक्षि और

गुिवत्ता णियंत्रि) णियाात णिरीक्षि पठरर्द द्वारा समय-समय पर, णलणखत रूप में, ददए गए णिदेशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/7/2024 - णियाात णिरीक्षि]

णसद्धाथा महािि, संयुि सणचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the, 29th October, 2024

S.O. 2016.––In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s. MLS Inspection Private Limited, Plot - F/17,

Block-F, 2^nd Floor, Durgachak Colony, P.O/P.S-Durgachak, Haldia-721602, District- Purba Medinipur, West

Bengal, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of

publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron

Ore, specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce,

published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, respectively, before export of the

said Minerals and Ores at Haldia Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/7/2024 - Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4735

नई दिल्ली, 29 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2017.––केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयाित (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ परठत जनयाित (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससा टीसीआरसी इंस्पेक्शि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, प्लॉट नंबर -682,

िॉजस्ट्पटल रोड, बड़जबल, केन्िूझर, ओजडिा -758035, (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उक्त अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस

अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषि के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित

भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में जनर्ििष् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना

की सं॰का.आ. 3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-।, अथाित

लौि अयस्ट्क के जनयाित से पूवि जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन पारािीप पत्तन, िामरा पत्तन और गोपालपुर पत्तन में उि

खजनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाित :

(i) यि अजभकरण, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाित (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की

पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयाित जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयािप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान

करेगी;

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्ििष् ट अपने कायो का जनष् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और

गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयाित जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलजखत रूप में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/3/2024 - जनयाित जनरीक्षण]

णसद्धाथा महािि, संयुि सणचव

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2024

S.O. 2017.––In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s TCRC Inspections Private Limited, Plot No. -

682, Hospital Road, Barbil, Kendujhar, Odisha - 758035, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for

three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of

Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated

20^th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Dhamra Port and

Gopalpur Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/3/2024 - Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt .Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2018.––-केन्द्रीय सरकार, णियाात (गुिवत्ता णियंत्रि एंव णिरीक्षि) अणिणियम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ पठित णियाात (गुिवत्ता णियंत्रि एंव णिरीक्षि) णियम, 1964 के णियम 12, के

उपणियम (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शणियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससा एमएलएस इंस्पेक्शि प्राइवेट णलणमटेड, प्लॉट िंबर-66,

सेक्टर-ए, िोि-डी, मंचेश्वर औद्योणगक एस्टेट, भुविेश्वर-751010, ओणडशा (णिसे एतद्पिात उि अणभकरि कहा

िायेगा), को इस अणिसूचिा के रािपत्र में प्रकाशि की तारीख से तीि वर्ा के णलए, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की शासकीय

रािपत्र में प्रकाणशत भारत सरकार की अणिसूचिा के साथ अिुसूची में णिर्दाष््‌ट ददिांक 20 ददसम्बर, 1965 की

अणिसूचिा की सं॰का.आ. 3975 तथा के तहत प्रकाणशत अणिसूचिा में उपाबद्ध अिुसूची में णवणिर्दाष्ट खणिि और अयस्क

समूह-।, अथाात लौह अयस्क, के णियाात से पूवा णिम्नणलणखत शतों के अिीि पारादीप पत्ति, िामरा पत्ति और गोपालपुर

पत्ति में उि खणिि और अयस्क के णिरीक्षि करिे के णलए एक अणभकरि के रुप में मान्द्यता देती है, अथाात ्‌ :

4736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

करेगी;

[फा. सं. के-16014/8/2024 - णियाात णिरीक्षि]

णसद्धाथा महािि, संयुि सणचव

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2024

S.O. 2018––In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s TCRC Inspections Private Limited, Plot No. -

682, Hospital Road, Barbil, Kendujhar, Odisha - 758035, (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency

for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of

Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated

20^th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Dhamra Port and

Gopalpur Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/8/2024 - Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt .Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2019.––-केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयाित

)

गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण

(

अजिजनयम

, 1963 (1963 का 22)

की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के साथ परठत जनयाित

)

गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण

(

जनयम

, 1964 के जनयम 12, के

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैससि जियो केम लेबोरेटरीि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, प्लॉट नंबर 211,

सेक्टर-ए, िोन-बी, फस्ट्टि फ्लोर, मंचेस्ट्वर इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, भुवनेश्वर-751010, ओजडिा (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उक्त

अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषि के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की

िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के साथ अनुसूची में जनर्ििष् ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की

अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्ििष्ट खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-

।, अथाित लौि अयस्ट्क तथा फेरोमैंगनीि के जनयाित से पूवि जनम्नजलजखत ितों के अिीन पारािीप पत्तन और िामरा पत्तन में

उक्त खजनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुप में मान्यता िेती िै, अथाित :

(i) यि अजभकरण, खजनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-। का जनयाित

)

जनरीक्षण

(

जनयम

, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की

करेगी;

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में यथा जवजनर्ििष् ट अपने कायो का जनष् पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक

)

जनरीक्षण और

गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण

(

जनयाित जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय

समय पर

, जलजखत रूप में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/4/2024 - णियाात णिरीक्षि]

णसद्धाथा महािि, संयुि सणचव

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2024

S.O. 2019.––In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4737

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s Geo Chem Laboratories Private Limited, Plot

No. 211, Sector-A, Zone-B, First Floor, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010, Odisha (hereinafter

referred to as the said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification

in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore and Ferromanganese, as

specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce,

published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the

said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port and Dhamra Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/4/2024 - Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.

और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का

–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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k – सह – Je U;k;ky;] जबलपुर ds iapkV( (एलसी-आर/

/

) dks izdkf” kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

-22012/255/2012-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मणिकंदन. एन, उप णनदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2020.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/-R/48/2013) of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/10/2024.

[F. No. L-22012/255/2012 – IR (CM-II) ]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/48/2013

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU)

Branch-Bangwar, PO-Bemhouri,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Workman

4738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manger,

Sohagpur Area of SECL,

PO: Dhanpuri,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 07^th day of October-2024)

As per letter dated 05/03/2013 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 (in short the ‘Act’) as

per Notification No. L-22012/255/2012-IR (CM-II) dt. 05/03/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether, the action of the management of Sohagpur Area of SECL, in not protecting the Basic

Pay of Shri Balbeer Burman, on his appointment as Clerk Grade-III is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference notices were issued to the parties. They

appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

Facts admitted between the parties are that the workman Balbeer Burman was first appointed with

management on 31/12/1984, he was promoted on 20/07/1994. Thereafter, he was appointed as Clerk

Grade-III vide order of management dated 06/08/1995 in the scale Rs. 1095-37-1613. According to the

workman he was getting salary with basic pay Rs. 1225/- at time he was appointed as Clerk Grade-III

before his appointment as Clerk but after he joined as Clerk Grade-III, his basic pay was fixed Rs. 1095

which was lesser than the basic pay Rs. 1225/- which he was earlier getting which is unjust, against rules

and arbitrary on the part of management. The workman has thus prayed that holding the action of

management in awarding basic pay Rs. 1095/- for the post of Clerk Grade-III against law, the workman be

held entitled to get his basic pay fixed Rs. 1225+37 that is total Rs. 1262/- from the date of his appointment

as Clerk Grade-III.

Case of management is that the Cadre of General Mazdoor in which the workman was first

appointed and regularized in T&S Grade in 1986 thereafter promoted to Dresser Grade-II w.e.f. from

20/07/1994 and the Cadre of clerks in the management are two different Cadres. The workman working in

the Cadre of General Mazdoor are given opportunity as per rules and qualification to apply for different

posts in different Cadres and after selection to different posts, joined on the selected post according to their

wishes. According to management there is no provision in the National Coal Wage Agreements (NCWA)

regarding protection of pay from one Cadre to another Cadre hence the action of management in not

permitting pay of the workman is not unjustified. Management has requested that the reference be

answered to workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4739

Both the sides have filed affidavits of their witnesses and their examination in-chief they have been

examined. Parties have filed documents which are admitted between the parties and refer to as and when

required.

Heard argument of Learned Counsel for management Mr. Neeraj Kewat. None was present for

argument on behalf of the workman union. They have preferred to file written arguments through their

Learned Counsel Mr. Rajesh Chand. I have gone through the written arguments and the records as well.

The reference itself is issue for consideration in the case in hand.

According to the management, the Cadre of General Mazdoor and Clerks in different Cadres are

two different and distinguish Cadres. This fact is not disputed by the Workman Union.

Though normally there are rules for pay protection in the case of change of Cadres in institutions but since

there is no such provision applicable for the employees of management as mentioned in the NCWA, hence

in absence of any provision pertaining to pay protection in the cases of change of Cadre, the action of

Management in not permitting the pay of the workman in the Cadre in hand cannot be held against rules,

though it is desirable that management should provide for pay protection in such cases to its employees by

way of incorporating such provision in NCWA.

In the light of above discussion, holding the action of management in not providing the basic pay

of the Workman Balbeer Burman is not against rules, the reference deserves to be answered the workman.

On the basis of above discussion, following award is passed.

AWARD

Holding the action of General Mazdoor Sohagpur Area of SECL in not permitting the basic

pay of the workman Balbeer Burman on his appointment as Clerk Grade-III not against rules, the

workman is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost.

DATE:- 07/10/2024

P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2021.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ,l.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 &22012/66/2018-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2021.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/60/2018) 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

22/10/2024.

[No. L-22012/66/2018 – IR (CM-II) ]

MANIKANDAN. N, Deputy Director

4740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Dubey

General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation

Federation Office-Chimiri Po- Haldibadi,

Chirmiri, Korea (Chattisgarh)- 497451

Workman

The General Manager,

SECL, Chirmiri Area

PO- West Chirmiri Distt-

Korea (Chattisgarh)- 497773

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 01^st day of October-2024)

Govt. Of India, Ministry of Labour, has referred the dispute vide reference No. L-22012/66/2018-

(IR(CM-II) dated 13-11-2018 for adjudication to the C.G.I.T. cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (M.P.) on the

following Schedule viz. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether, the action of the management of Dumanhill colliery of SECL, Chirmiri Area in not

providing the consequential benefits on re-instatement viz service linked up-gradation and

proportion at par with other co-employees in Mazdoor Category-VI in respect of Shri Bindeshwari

Singh, General Mazdoor besides paying the wages arrear payment as espoused by the General

Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation, Chirimiri Area is appropriate and justified? If

not, what relief Shri Bindeshwari Singh, General Mazdoor of Dumanhill Colliery is entitled to as a

consequential benefiton re-statement of service?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference received notices were issued to the parties.

They appeared on, filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

According to the Workmen Union, the workmen Bindeshwari Singh was appointed as General

Mazdoor Category I on 15/07/1976 he was dismissed from service by management on 22/01/1988 he

raised a dispute before this Tribunal, on the basis of which a reference was made by the Central

Government to this Tribunal. An award holding the order of dismissal legal and proper was passed by this

Tribunal on 19/11/1998 in the reference case No. R/R/247/89. The workmen filed that petition No.

4064/1999 before Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh which was decided after hearing by a Single Bench.

Holding the award dated 19/11/1998 against law, it was quashed and the workmen was directed to be

reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. An Writ Appeal No. 299/2013 preferred by

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4741

management was dismissed by division bench of Hon’ble High Court wide order dated 10/06/2013 and a

said appeal was dismissed. A special appeal petition (Civil) 256/2013 filed by management against the

order in writ appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the workmen union the

workmen Bindeshwari Singh was reinstated on 14/04/2014. He was paid back wages from the date of his

dismissal that is 22/01/1988 to 13/01/2014. To was denied consequential benefits which he can have

availed had not been dismissed. These benefits are subsequent promotions, annual bonuses, service rink of

up gradation, house rent and confidence allowances and other allowances. The Workmen Union has

enumerated these benefits said to be consequential and given to all the employees in the Para No. 10 of

their statements of claim which are as follows :-

Annual increments is granted to every employee. Bindeshwari Singh was deprived of this benefit.

ii.

House Rent allowance and transport subsidy are granted to such employees who have not been

provided company’s quarter and who come from distant place. Bindeshwari Singh was denied this

benefit.

iii.

Every workmen is entitled to Bonus as per Bonus Act. Bindeshwari Singh was denied this benefit.

iv.

Paid festival holiday is granted to every employee. Bindeshwari Singh was denied this benefit.

Service linked up-gradation is granted to every employee. Bindeshwari Singh was denied this

benefits.

vi.

Some promotion is done without DPC. It is generally based on duration of service. It is related to

Cat. I,II and III. From Cat. IV to Cat. VI some sort of DPC is required. Bindeshwari Singh was

denied the benefit of promotion from Cat. I to Cat. III.

vii.

Every workmen is granted leave with pay and leave encashment. Bindeswari Singh was denied of

yearly leave encashment.

viii.

Every workman is granted Fixed Dearness Allowance i.e. FDA since April 1991. Bindeswari

Singh was denied this benefit.

ix.

Every workman has been granted 4% of the basic as special increment since July 2011.

Bindeshwari Singh was denied this benefits.

Every workman is granted LPG Gas Allowance, Bindeshwari Singh was denied this benefits.

xi.

Prior to date of dismissal i.e. prior to 22-01-1988, Bindeshwari Singh was placed under

suspension. He was entitled to full salary of suspended period because of he was reinstated. This

amount has been denied including HRA to Bindeshwari Singh.

According to the Workman Union the action of management in not maintaining consequential

benefits in the light of the order in Hon’ble High Court which is final between the parties is unjust,

4742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

illegal, and arbitrary. The Workman Union has thus prayed that the workmen be held entitled to the

consequential benefits enumerated in Para 10 of their statement of claim.

In their written statement of defense management has taken a case with the case of consequential

benefits to be granted to the workman has been examined in the light of relevant provisions. According to

the management, the workman was entitled to the consequential benefits because he did not perform his

duties in the period he was out of job. Management has thus requested that the reference be answered

against the workman.

Since the dispute involved is perpetual legal hence no evidence of fact has been adduced by the

parties.

None appear for parties at the time of argument, no written agreement was filed. I have gone

through the records.

The reference itself is the issue for determination.

The consequential benefits which the workman was entitled to had he be in service during the

period in question have been enumerated by the workmen union in their statement of claim. The case of

management is that since the workman was not on duty during the said period and its benefit are

admissible only to those who were on actual duty; the workman is not entitled to these consequential

benefits. It is to be kept in mind that the workman was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

It emphasis that for the consequential benefits the workman will be deemed to be in service for the said

period. When the workman in service for the said period in the light of order referred to above, he shall be

deemed entitled to consequential benefits also in the light of the said order hence, the action of

management is held unjust and against law. The workman is held entitled to all the consequential benefits

deeming in to be in service for the period.

AWARD

Holding the action of the management of Dumanhill colliery of SECL, Chirmiri Area in not

providing the consequential benefits on re-instatement viz service linked up-gradation and proportion at

par with other co-employees in Mazdoor Category-VI in respect of Shri Bindeshwari Singh, General

Mazdoor besides paying the wages arrear payment as espoused by the General Secretary of Rashtriya

Colliery Workers Federation, Chirimiri Area appropriate and justified, Shri Bindeshwari Singh, General

Mazdoor of Dumanhill Colliery is entitled to all the consequential benefits deeming in to be in service for

the period on re-statement of service.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 01/10/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2022.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ,l.ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4743

esa

– सह –

] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/76/2011

) dks

izdkf” kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y &22012/89/2011-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/76/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.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 22/10/2024

[No. L-22012/89/2011 – IR (CM-II) ]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/2011

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Rajkumar Das

S/o. Baijnath Das

Qtr. No. M-99, Ompur, Rajgamar

Korba (C.G.).

Workman

The Dy. General Manager

Central SECL, Rajgamar Colliery

Korba Area, Korba, Chhattisgarh.

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 24^th day of September-2024)

As per letter dated 02/08/2011 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 (in short the ‘Act’) as

per Notification No. L-22012/89/2011 IR (CM-II) dt. 02/08/2011. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether, the action of the management of SECL Rajgamar Colliery, Distt. Korba for premature

retirement to Shri Rajkumar Das w.e.f. 31.07.2010 instead of 31.03.2015 without considering all

the documents as submitted by the workman in dispute was legal, proper and justified ? To what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were

served. The workman filed statement of claim. Management also filed its written statement of defense.

The case of the workman, as taken by him in his statement of claim is mainly that he was first

appointed as a General Mazdoor on 23.07.1974. He had submitted his class 5^th pass certificate of year 1971

issued by Primary Education Department, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 06.03.1955 at the time

4744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of joining. He had undergone initial medical examination under Rule 29-B (a) (ii) of Mines Rules 1955.

His date of birth 06.03.1955 was recorded in his medical examination certificate. Form-B was prepared by

management which is supposed to be prepared on the basis of information received from workman except

his age and sex, which are entered into this Form on the basis of Form-O i.e. the Medical Examination

Certificate issued by the Doctor. Management prepared another Form-A for the purpose of Coal Mines

Provident Fund. His date of birth 06.03.1955 was recorded in this form also.

It is further the case of workman that he came to know about the wrong entry with respect to his

age and date of birth in Form-B, when the service excerpts were provided to him by management in 1987,

in which his date of birth was shown as 23.07.1950. He made objection to this entry by way of

endorsement in the service excerpts and deposited it with management requesting that his date of birth be

corrected and recorded as 06.03.1955. Thereafter, as it is the case of the workman, he made several

representations from time to time to management to correct his date of birth but no action was taken by

management. The management issued notice of superannuation on the basis of his incorrect date of birth

23.07.1950. The workman raised a dispute in this respect which could not be conciliated, hence this

reference. According to the workman, the action of management in not correcting entry regarding his date

of birth is in violation of Implementation Instructions 76 (I.I. 76), hence unjust, improper and arbitrary. The

workman has thus requested that answering the reference in his favour, he be held entitled to be reinstated

with back wages and all in service and post retiral benefits considering his date of birth as 06.03.1955.

According to management, the workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-I

(Loader) w.e.f. 23.07.1974. He was posted in Rajgamar Colliery. In the records prepared by management

at the time of his first appointment i.e. Form-B, his date of birth 23.07.1950 was recorded on the basis of

information given by him, no documentary proof regarding date of his birth was given by the workman at

the time of joining. Service register was prepared on the basis of Form-B, the same date of birth was

recorded over which the workman did not raised any objection, rather put his signature/thumb impression

admitting the entries. Management admits in its pleadings that the workman raised dispute regarding the

date of his birth recorded in records of management for the first time in 1987, as alleged by him. It is

further the case of management that matter regarding dispute of the date of birth of the workman was

referred to the headquarters who after due consideration, refused to grant the relief vide order dated

16.12.2002 holding that there was no merit in his claim. Management has further pleaded that the dispute

was raised by workman at the fag end of his service and has requested that the reference be answered

against the workman.

In evidence, workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief he has been cross

examined by management, he has filed and proved documents Ex. W/1 report of failure of conciliation, Ex.

W/2 copy of service excerpts issued in 1987, Ex. W/3 notice regarding superannuation, Ex. W/4 copy of

I.I. 76 issued under NCWA III, Ex. W/5 marksheet cum certificate, Ex. W/6 transfer certificate, Ex. W/7

birth certificate, Ex. W/8 admission certificate, Ex. W/9 Coal Mines Provident Fund Form, W/10

application dated 16.11.1999, W/11 application dated 14.09.2000 filed by workman for correction of his

date of birth, Ex. W/12 report of medical examination dated 17.10.2008. Management has filed affidavit of

its witness as her examination in chief and photocopy documents Ex. M/1, copy of service excerpts dated

12.08.1987 with letter of management dated 12.08.1987.

I have heard argument learned Counsel Shri R.C. Shrivastava for workman and learned Counsel

for management Shri Neeraj Kewat. I have gone through the record as well.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4745

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for consideration :-

1. Whether, the action of management in refusing the petition of workman regarding correction of

date of his birth is justified in law ?

2. Whether, the workman is entitled to any relief ?

Issue No.-1 :-

It is the case of the management that the representation of the workman seeking correction of his

date of birth was sent to headquarters and was rejected vide order dated 28.12.200, details mentioned in

para 9 of written statement of management. Case of the management is further that this petition was

without merit. The question here arises about the legality of this decision of management.

Management has filed a photocopy of the said communication of headquarter dated 16.12.2002 as

Annexure M/5 to the written statement, which has not been admitted by workman. Though management

has not care to prove this document, even if it is taken into account, the question arises as to whether this

decision was informed to the workman by the management. The written statement of the management and

the affidavit of management witness are silent on the point of informing this decision by management to

the workman. There is on record Annex. M/6 to the written statement, which is photocopy letter dated

28.12.2002, sent by the personal manager to the workman showing that the competent authority did not

concede the prayer of the workman regarding correction of date of his birth. This document is also not

proved. More ever, it does not show that this letter was in fact received by the workman.

Management has not disclosed the basis of the decision by headquarter in refusing the petition of workman

for correction of date of his birth. The communication as mentioned above does not disclose any basis for

the decision.

Procedure regarding, dealing the disputes regarding date of birth of the workmen is mentioned in

I.I. 76, the relevant portion of which is being reproduced as follows :-

IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUCTION NO. 76

PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION/ VERIFICATION OF AGE OF EMPLOYEES

(A) Determination of the age at the time of appointment

Matriculates.

In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of

birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not

be altered under any circumstances.

ii)

Non-matriculates but educated.

In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognised educational institution, the

date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, shall be treated as correct date of birth

and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.

iii)

Ex-servicemen.

In the case of Ex-servicemen who are not matriculates, the date of biran recorded in the Army

Discharge Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered

4746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under any circumstances. In the case of Ex-servicemen who have passed Matriculation

examination, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate will be treated as correct

date of birth, provided they have passed the Matriculation examination before entering the

Defence Services; otherwise the date of birth recorded in Army Discharge Certificate will be taken

as correct date of birth.

iv)

Illiterate.

In the cases of appointees not covered under the foregoing clauses, the date of birth will be

determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant

evidence as produced by the appointee. Date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date

of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances.

(B)

Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.

i) (a)

in the case of existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued

by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of

Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies

should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Board/Institutions

prior to the date of employment.

i) (b)

Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the

Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.

Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are available, in the

date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic.

ii)

Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very

glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management

after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through

Determination Committee/Medical Board.

(C)

Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the

Management, In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in the accordance

with the procedure mentioned in (B) (i) (a) or (B) (i) (b) above, the date of birth recorded in the

records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards (untampered)

will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation, in the age recorded in the records

mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board

constituted by the Management for determination of age.

(D)

For determination of the age, the Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider the

evidences, available with the Colliery Management and /or adduced before the employee

concerned.

(E)

Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in accordance

with the requirement of “Medical Jurisprudence” and the Medical Board will as far as possible

indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately.

(F)

Where the Management (i.e.) Area Age Assessment Committee consisting of General Manager,

Personnel Manager and Medical officer-in-charge of the Area is satisfied that there is a glaring

disparity between the date of birth recorded in the identity cards and the apparent age of the

employee, the cases may be referred to the Apex Medical Board located at Headquarters of the

company for determination of age.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4747

(H)

After the assessment of the age by the Ager Determination Committee/Medical Board the same

will be computerized and print out of the same will be given to the employee concerned and the

unit from where the reference was received within a month. If age is not, however, computerized,

still the same will be intimated to the employee concerned and the Unit within a month.

(I)

It was agreed that in cases where instead of date of birth, year has been recorded, 1^st July of the

year will be deemed to be the date of birth.

As it is apparent from perusal of From-B referred to by both the sides the workman has put his

signature on this Form. It goes to show that he was not illiterate at the time of his first appointment.

Admittedly, Form-B is prepared at the time of first appointment and the workman was appointed on

23.07.1974, whereas the Form-B filed by the management is of 07.09.1988. Why the first Form-B,

prepared at the time of first appointment of the workman was not produced by the management is not

explained by management.

When it is established that the workman was atleast a literate person at the time of first

appointment, provision regarding ascertaining the date of workman coming in the category of non

matriculates but educated should have been applied. There is nothing on record to indicate that the

documents required to be looked into in such case as mentioned in the provision referred to above were

considered by management at headquarter. The workman has filed and proved his school certificate cum

marksheet and transfer certificate against which there is nothing produced by management to discredit

these documents.

Hence, in the light of above discussion, the action of management in not accepting the demand of

the workman for correction of date of his birth and refusing it vide order dated 16.12.2002 cannot be

sustained in law and is held arbitrary and against law. On the basis of evidence on record the workman is

held to have successfully proved his date of birth as 06.03.1955.

Issue No.-1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-2 :-

The main argument of management is that the claim was raised by the workman at fag end of his

service. Learned Counsel for management has relied on following judgments in this respect :-

1) State of Gujarat Vs. Vali Mohammed, (2006) 6 SCC 573 – In this case the dispute regarding date

of birth was raised by the employee after he received notice of his superannuation.

2) Bharat Coking Coal Vs. Shyam Kishor Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 – In this case the workman

submitted his Provident Fund Form in 1998 in his own handwriting indicating his date of birth as

04.03.1950. He did not raise any dispute in this respect when his service excerpts were served on

him in 1987 and first filed his representation seeking change of his date of birth just prior to his

retirement in 2009. `

In both the cases, claim of the workman was dismissed.

Since, it is proved and admitted also that the workman in the case in hand has been agitating

against entry regarding date of his birth since 1987, his date of birth 06.03.1955 was recorded in his

Provident Form, which is not disputed by management, though it has been in their custody, coupled with

the fact that first Form-B prepared by management at the time of first appointment of workman was not

produced by management for reasons undisclosed and there is no evidence on record that order of

4748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

management refusing correction was ever communicated to the management, facts of this case are

distinguishable from the cases referred.

In the light of above discussion, the action of management in terminating the services of the

workman on 31.07.2010 is held against law, improper and unjustified. Accordingly, the workman is held

entitled to be treated in service till date of his superannuation on the basis of his date of birth 06.03.1955

and is held entitled to all back wages and in service as well post retiral benefits admissible to him within 30

days from the date of publication of Award, failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. from the date of Award, till

payment.

Issue No.-2 is answered accordingly.

AWARD

Holding, the action of management in terminating the services of the workman on 31.07.2010

against law, improper and unjustified, the workman is held entitled to be treated in service till date of his

superannuation on the basis of his date of birth 06.03.1955 and is also held entitled to all back wages as

well in service and post retiral benefits admissible to him 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:- 24/09/2024

P. K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2023.—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 –

] िबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-आर/

/

) dks

izdkf” kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y &22012/64/2009-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/25/2010) 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 22/10/2024.

[No. L-22012/64/2009 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/25/2010

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The General Secretary

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4749

KSS (CITU)

Qtr. No. S/59, Bijuri Colliery

Post : Bijuri, Anuppur (M.P.)

Workman

The Chief General Manager

Hasdeo Area of M/s. SECL

Po-South Jhagrakhand

Distt.- Korea (C.G.)

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 27^th day of September-2024)

As per letter dated 23/02/2010 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the

reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per Notification No. L-22012/64/2009 IR (CM-II) dt. 23/02/2010. The dispute

under reference relates to:

“Whether, the action of the management of CGM, Hasdeo Area of SECL in not reinstating Shri

Vinod Kumar Pandey, in services, even after the decision of Functional Directors, SECL passed

vide letter 28.10.1996 is legal and justified ? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were

served. Both the parties appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and defense.

The case of the workman, as taken by him in his statement of claim, is mainly that he was first

appointed on 20.11.1981 as casual labour in the Bijuri Colliery Area, was regularized vide order of

management dated 13.04.1983 as Misc. Mazdoor in Category-I from 01.04.1983. The management

terminated his services vide letter dated 06.08.1984 without giving any opportunity of hearing and without

any show cause notice assigning any reason, which is arbitrary on the part of management. The workman

raised his matter with superior management, hence in the Board of Meeting of Directors on 28.10.1996 a

resolution passed by CGM Hasdeo Area of SECL taking the workman back in service was adopted but no

appointment order was issued, which is malafide on the part of management and is unfair labour practice.

The workman has thus prayed that holding the action of management in not issuing appointment letter to

the workman inspite of decision of Functional Directors on 28.10.1996 against law and unjustified, the

workman be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and consequential benefits.

According to management, the workman was initially appointed as General Mazdoor, Category-I

w.e.f. 19.11.1981. He was regularized in service alongwith other workman vide order dated 01.04.1983. He

submitted a resignation letter to management on 27.08.1983 stating that he did not want to continue in

service and be relieved. Accepting his prayer, management relieved him from his duties on 07.09.1983.

Thereafter, he submitted applications to management stating that he wanted to serve and requested the

management to take him back in service. Accepting this prayer, he was offered fresh appointment as

Casual General Mazdoor, Category-I for a period of atleast 60 days in a quarter vide order of management

4750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 30.11.1983. He did not improve and indulged on 05.08.1984 in violence with his co-workers. The

Criminal Case was registered against him and after investigation a charge sheet was filed by Police. After

trial he was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol U/S. 307 I.P.C. in Session Trial

No. 10/85. This conviction and sentence were altered by Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No.-

774/1986 reducing the sentence to period undergone. He was dismissed from service vide order dated

06.08.1984, being a casual mazdoor without inquiry on the ground of his misconduct on 05.08.1984 as

stated above without any inquiry because he was a casual mazdoor. It is further the case of management

that his case was placed before the Functional Directors by the General Secretary of the Union. They found

no scope of interference and the proposal for his reinstatement was regretted by management vide letter

dated 17.08.1998. According to management its action is justified in law and fact. Management thus

requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

In evidence, workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief, he has been cross

examined by management. The management has also filed affidavit of its two witnesses as their

examination in chief and has proved documents which are Ex. M/1 to M/10, to be referred to as and when

required.

I have heard arguments of learned Counsel for workman Shri R.K. Soni and learned Counsel for

management Shri Neeraj Kewat. I have gone through the record as well.

The reference is the issue for determination in this case.

The first point to be considered is whether action of management in disengaging the workman on

06.08.1984 on the ground that he indulged in inflicting injuries to his co-workers without any inquiry or

show cause notice was justified or not ?

Not disputed between the parties is the fact that the workman was offered fresh appointment on his

prayer on 30.11.1983 as a casual mazdoor. The Certified Standing Orders apply to the regular employees

only. The workman had not completed even 240 days on the date of termination of his services by

management on 06.08.1984 as he was undisputedly engaged on 03.11.1983. More ever, the burden to

prove this fact lies on workman, which he has not discharged.

Now the second point arises that, whether rejection of proposal dated 13.08.1998 with respect to

reinstatement/reappointment of the workman by the Board is legal ?

Both the letters have filed by management witness Mohammed Fahed with his affidavit as

Annexures to the affidavit. Letter dated 13.08.1998 shows that the case for reinstatement of the workman

was raised by the General Secretary of the Union which was regretted by Competent Authority and on

further persuasion of the union representative Mohammed Salimuddin GM appointed as Inquiry Officer,

submitted his findings to Competent Authority and accordingly a proposal was put up before the

Functional Directors of SECL who regretted the proposal. Even if there was any recommendation at any

level, though there is nothing on record to indicate it, the Board is not bound to accept such a proposal.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the decision of management cannot be

held unjust. Hence, holding no illegality in the action of management in regretting reinstatement to the

workman, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4751

AWARD

Holding the action of management in not reinstating the workman Vinod Kumar Pandey legal and

proper, he is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost.

DATE:- 27/09/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2024.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

– सह –

]जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी-/

/

) dks izdkf” kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. ,y &22013/01/2024-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-A/04/2022) 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 22/10/2024.

[No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

Present-P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd)

NO. CGIT/LC/A/04/2022

Manish Kumar Tripathi,

S/o Shri A.P. Tripathi,

Govinda Siding and R/o Bhadra Staff Colony,

Post Bhadra, Dist. Anuppur (MP)

Pin- 484334

APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. The Sub Area Manager,

Kotma-Govinda Sub Area

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Pasan,

Dist. Anuppur (MP)

2. The Manager (Personnel),

Kotma-Govinda Sub Area

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Post Pasan,

Dist. Anuppur (MP)

NON-APPLICANT

4752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

O R D E R

( Passed on this 25^th day of September 2024 )

The workman Manish Kumar Tripathi has filed this petition under Section 33-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to by the word ‘Act’, with the case that he is a certificate holder of

Higher Secondary Examination and Diploma Course in Computer Application and Programming but was posted

as General Mazdoor cadre though being Diploma holder in Computer Application, was authorized to perform

the job of Data Entry Operator as Clerk Grade-III. According to the standing instructions in force in the

establishment of the management, he had maturated his right to be absorbed as a Computer Operator the job

which he was doing as directed by management. When management did not concede his request, he raised a

dispute, reference with respect to which is pending and adjourned before this Tribunal. The management has

transferred him and has posted him as General Mazdoor in underground duty which is a violation of Section-33

A of the Act and hence is against the law and arbitrary. The applicant has thus prayed that holding the order of

management to transfer him as Underground General Cadre Mazdoor against law, he be held entitled to the post

of Computer Operator.

Case of management, taken by them in their reply, is mainly that firstly, the petition is not

maintainable; secondly, the applicant was appointed as General Mazdoor he was never appointed as Data Entry

Operator which is a separate cadre post. The rules and qualification regarding appointment of personnel in the

Data Entry department are different hence there is no change in the working condition of the applicant for his

transfer as General Mazdoor in underground duty.

Both sides have filed same photocopy documents which are mainly the appointment of the

workman, transfer order and cadre scheme with regard to personnel in Data Entry department.

I have heard the argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Subodh Agrawal for the applicant and Learned

Senior Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair for the opposite party management and have gone through the record.

On measure of the record in the light of replied documents, following issue arises for

consideration.

Whether, the order of management transferring the applicant as underground General Mazdoor is

in violation of Section 33-A of the Act.

Section 33-A of the Act is being reproduced as follows-

33-A.

Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc., changed

during pendency of proceedings.—Where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33 during the

pendency of proceedings 5 before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour Court, Tribunal or

National Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a camplaint in writing, 5 [in

the prescribed manner,—

(a)

to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take such

complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial dispute; and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4753

(b)

to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of such

complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall

adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with

the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate Government and the

provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.

The appointment letter of the workman shows that he was appointed as General Mazdoor

Category-I. Management has filed the cadre scale with regards to Data Entry Operators which shows that

the Date Entry Operator form a separate and distinguish cadre which include Junior Date Entry Operator,

Date Entry Operator, Senior Data Entry Operator Grade II and Senior Data Entry Operator Grade I.

Similarly, General Mazdoor form a different cadre which is General Mazdoor Category I, II, III and so on.

Since both form separate cadre hence even if it is assumed that the management took the work of Data

Entry Operator from the workman, it can be deemed that management firmly inducted the applicant in the

Data Entry Operator cadre.

Hence, in the light of above discussion holding the petition without merits and is

dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dated: 25.09.2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2025.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

–

सह

–

नंo 2. मुंबई ds iapkV(सन्िभि संख्या

सीिीआईटी-2/2/201403/

) dks izdkf” kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. ,y &11012/34/2013-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (REFERENCE No.CGIT- 2/2/2014) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the Management of Air India Limitet and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

16/10/2024.

[No. L-11012/34/2013 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/2 of 2014

4754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/S. AIR INDIA LTD. & ANR.

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,

M/s. Air India Ltd,

22^nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,

Mumbai- 400005.

2. The Executive Director (Operations),

Air India Ltd.,

Operation Building, 2^nd Floor, Old Airport,

Kalina,

Mumbai- 400029.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

INDIAN PILOTS’ GUILD

The Vice President,

Indian Pilots` Guild

Transport Building, 1^st Floor,

Nr. Operations Department, Old Airport Kalina,

Mumbai- 400029.

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

Mr. Lancy D’Souza

Representative

Party No. 2

Mr. M. A. Amonkar

Advocate

AWARD

(Delivered on 04-09-2024)

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-11012/34/2013-IR

(CM-I) dated 03.01.2014. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

`Whether Clause 18 of Bilateral Settlement under heading `Revision of Wages for Pilots

w.e.f. 1.1.1997 to 31.12.2006` is violated by the Management of Air India Ltd? To what

relief the concerned Pilots` are entitled to ?`

During proceedings the Second Party filed a pursis Ex-11 signed by Vice-President Indian Pilots

Guild and alongwith letter address to the Counsel and thereby stated that, in the light of privatisation of the

airlines, they do not wish to pursue the present Reference and requested for disposal of Reference.

The First Party has given no objection for withdrawal of Reference.

In view of this, the Reference is disposed off for want of prosecution. No order as to costs.

Hence, I pass the following Award-

AWARD

i. The Reference is answered in the negative.

ii. The Second Party is not entitled for relief as prayed.

iii. No order as to costs.iv.

iv The Award be sent to the Government.

Date: 04-09-2024

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE ,Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4755

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2026.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj स्ट्टेट

बैंक ऑफ बायनेर एंड ियपुर (जवलय के बाि अब इसे भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक किा िाता िै) ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds

deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV 05 ( C ) of 2017

izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[la ,y - 12012/109/2016- vkbZ vkj (ch-I) ]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2026.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.05 ( C ) of 2017 ) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State

Bank of Bianer and Jaipur ( Now called State Bank of India after merger ) and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/109/2016-IR(B-I)]

SALONI Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

Before The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

Reference Case No.:-05 (C) of 2017

Between the management of Regional Manager, State Bank of

Bikaner and Jaipur, Regional Office, Opp. Kulharia Complex, Ashok Rajpath, Patna (Bihar) – 800004

And their workman Sri Surendra Kumar, represented through the President, Bank Employees

Federation, Bihar, Saboo Complex, 2^nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Exhibition Road, Patna ( Bihar ).

For the management:-

Sri Rashmi Rathi, Sharma, Manager ( Law )

Smt. Pragati Rai, Manager (HR).

Smt Richa Priyambada, Deputy Manager (Law)

For the workman:-

Sri B. Prasad, President, Bank Employees Federation,

Bihar.

Present:-

Manoj Shankar

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

A W A R D

Patna, dt- 27^th September, 2024.

By the adjudication order no.- L-12012/109/2016-IR(B-II) New Delhi, dated- 13.09.2017 the

Govt. of India Ministry of Labour New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-

section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”)

the following dispute between the management of Regional Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,

Regional Office, Opp. Kulharia Complex, Ashok Rajpath, Patna (Bihar) – 800004 And their workman Sri

Surendra Kumar, represented through the President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar, Saboo Complex,

2^nd Floor, Behind Republic Hotel, Exhibition Road, Patna ( Bihar ) for adjudication to this tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in not

regularizing the service of Sri Surendra Kumar Peon / Safai Karamchari, Patna City

branch w.e.f.

31.07.2002 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?

4756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As per the statement of claim, the case of the workman Surendra Kumar is that he was orally

appointed on 31.07.2002 at Patna City Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ( now called State Bank

of India after merger ) to discharge the duties of a Safai Karmachari & Messenger. It is further asserted that

workman used to discharge his duties from 9.30 A.M to 6.00 P.M and during this period he used to open

the bank gate thereafter sweeping and cleaning of the branch premises and during working hour of bank he

used to take out cash box from the strong room to the cash counter, at the instruction of Branch Manger,

the workman also put registers at the staff table and some time he did the duty of postal work. Besides, this

he also did the duties of serving water, tea to the members of staffs and customers. It is also asserted that he

also discharged the duties of stitching vouchers currency notes as per requirements. It is further asserted

that initially he was paid @ Rs. 40/- per day which was enhanced @ Rs. 100/- per day in between 2002 to

2013. It is further asserted that payment of wages was made through different mode and some times in

different names and from 01.06.2017, the workman is not being paid wages. It is further asserted that

permanent Safai Karmachari working at Patna City Branch was promoted as a clerk from April 2015 and

workman has been discharged his all duties. It is further asserted that Head Office of the bank asked the

names of temporary / casual / daily rated worker for proper consideration but the workman is not aware

whether his name was forwarded by the branch or not. It is further asserted that the duties of the workman

are perennial in nature. The workman also put demand his regularization of his service but no positive

steps has been taken by the bank. It is further asserted that the service of workman has been utilized by the

management bank against the permanent vacant post Safai Karmachari and messenger. Seeing no scope

regularization of his service, the workman caused Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer but due

to non conciliation attitude of the management, the conciliation proceeding ended in failure and ultimately

culminated the reference before this tribunal. It is further asserted that the action of the management

constitute unfair labour practice as per provision of section-25(T) read with schedule V of the I.D. Act.

Moreover, management did not follow provision of equal work for equal work accordingly action of the

management in not regularizing of Surendra Kumar as peon Safai Karamchari at Patna City branch is

neither legal nor justified and so the workman seeks following relief (S);

(i) Regularisation of services as a messenger / Safai

Karamchari;

(ii) Payment of due wages from the date of his working

(iii)

Payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for contesting the

dispute;

(iv) Any other relief (S) as the tribunal deems fit and proper;

On the other hand written statement has been filed by the management bank and mentioned

therein the applicant has made SBBJ as the opposite party which has been, by virtue of notification dt-

22.02.2017and amalgamated in the transferee bank i.e State Bank of India . Therefore, State Bank of

India is empowered to represent this case. It is further asserted that applicant was never appointed as

employee of the bank in any manner there was no employer and employee relationship between bank and

Surendra Kumar ( Workman ) so question of regularisation of his service does not arise. It is further

asserted that as per section-2A of the I.D. Act the individual workman can raised the dispute and no other

workman nor any union can be a party to the dispute. In the instant case Bank Employee Federations,

Bihar had filed and dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Patna u/s 2(k) of the of the

I.D. Act for the regularisation of the service. Bank Employees Federation is not empowered to raise

dispute u/s 2(A) of the I.D. Act. It is further asserted that the applicant was engaged orally on requirement

basis by the branch and he was worked occasionally in the job of installation of electrical / sanitary

fittings / work from time to time in the branch and he was paid accordingly. In the banking norms there is

set procedure and process of recruitment of sub-staffs cadre. It is further asserted that the duties as shown

by the workman sides in the statement of claim is totally denied by the bank that is absolutely not correct.

The facts is that he was engaged for the some electrical / sanitary work and other Misc. work from time to

time as per requirement. It is further asserted that the claim of the workman is baseless. It is settled law

that merely because a employee as worked for 240 days or more on daily wages basis, he cannot claim

regularisation as a matter of right. For regularisation there must be post and demand and need for

retention of the employee according to the requirement of work. The applicant does not fall under any

category of employee / staff recognised under the provision of gazette notification dt-22.02.2017 and as

such transferee bank does not own the claim and any such workman who are out of purview and ambit of

the said notification. Since applicant was never appointed or engaged by the bank on regular basis and

thus question of regularisation of service does not arise at all. It is further asserted that bank has not

violated any provision of I.D. Act and the claim of the workman is fit to be dismissed.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4757

In order to establish, its contention the management bank examined altogether two witnesses who

are namely Rakesh Kumar Sharma ( M.W-1 ) and Deo Chandra Choudhary ( M.W-2 ). Besides,

management did not Exts any documents.

On the other hand, workman side did not adduce any evidence from its side.

6. First of all this tribunal scrutinizes the evidence of management side. M.W-1 Rakesh Kumar Sharma the

Chief Manager of SBI who deposed before this tribunal on 09.08.2018 he stated in evidence that Surendra

Kumar was never appointed as employee in his bank. This witness further stated that he was posted in

SBBJ Patna Branch from 28.07.2015 to 22.06.2017. This witness further stated that during his tenure

Surendra Kumar was engaged for the cleaning purposes on requirement and bank also took the service of

some other on the exigency of work for which they were paid accordingly. This witness further stated that

Surendra Kumar was never worked regularly as a regular employee and the claim of the Surendra Kumar

he was doing work in the said bank from 31.07.2002 is totally false.

In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-5 that Surendra Kumar was

engaged of an on for the cleaning purposes on requirement basis and this witness categorically stated in

para-6 that this is not fact that Surendra Kumar was discharged the work of messenger / sweeper and he was

never paid minimum wages. This witness further stated in para-8 is that before merger in the SBI had asked

from all the branches of SBBJ regarding temporary workman vide letter dt- 15.07.2016 and the same is

proved as Ext.-W. This witness further stated in cross-examination that on the basis of Ext.-W SBBJ never

sent the name of Surendra Kumar as a temporary workman. This witness admits in para-11 of the cross-

examination that Surendra Kumar was paid wages through voucher when ever he discharged his duties and

he proved the three vouchers bearing his signature i.e Ext.- W/1 to W/3. In para-13 of the cross-examination

this witness stated that bank never prepared attendance register of the temporary worker who discharged

duties as a daily wager and bank never gave termination letter to the daily wager,

7. M.W-2 Deo Chandra Choudhary is the manager FIBC who examined before this tribunal on

20.9.2018. He stated in his evidence that he joined the SBI Patna Sahib Branch on 12.06.2017 and he was

branch manager there till

09.12.2017. At that time there was two clerk, four officers and one messenger in branch. Once Satyendra

Narayan Singh was messenger in his branch. This witness further stated that during his tenure Surendra

Kumar never worked in his branch and he does not know Surendra Kumar was doing work in the said

branch too last 15 years. This witness further stated that the duty of taking out cash box can be done by only

permanent employee and it was handled by Satyendra Narayan Singh. This witness further stated that

Surendra Kumar never filed any petition regarding his regularisation. This witness further stated that

Surendra Kumar and his son Aryan Raj are the loanee they have requested to waive the interest of the loan.

In para-10 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that Surendra Kumar

was not the employee of the SBI so there is no question of his termination and this is not fact that when the

notice was served to bank, Surendra Kumar terminated from 13.04.2018. This witness further stated in

cross-examination that he never terminated Surendra Kumar so there is no question of issuance of any notice

or compensation to him and there is no violation of section 33 of the I.D. Act.

8. On the other hand, workman never appeared for adducing evidence to support his claim and workman

side also did not examine any witness rather reported to this tribunal, perhaps workman has no interest in his

own case that’s why the workman did not approach to this tribunal for his evidence.

9. It is argued from the management side Surendra Kumar was never engaged regularly in SBBJ as per his

claim asserted in statement of claim rather the facts is that he was engaged by the SBBJ branch on

requirement for cleaning of the premises for which he has duly paid. It is further argued that the voucher of

dated 02.06,2016 has filed by the workman side ( Ext.-W/1 ) his payment of Rs. 1000/- for as labour

payment for cleaning like wise the voucher of 18.01.2016 his payment of Rs 490/- and vouchers of dt-

18.01.2016 the payment of Rs. 2000/- is the Surendra Kumar as a Labour payment this vouchers itself shows

that Surendra Kumar was paid for serving water, cleaning purpose when ever he discharged duties. These

three documents does not show Surendra Kumar was regularly discharging duties as a messenger / peon /

4758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Safai Karamchari on regular basis. This is duly established by the management witness in their evidence. It

is also argued that workman himself did not turned up before this tribunal for adducing evidence in support

of his claim this is clear cut indication what ever he claimed regarding

discharging his duties in the SBBJ for the 15 years was beyond the truth. Accordingly workman is not

entitled for any relief.

10. On the other representative of the workman submitted that workman has no interest at all and that’s why

he did not turned up for his evidence so award may be passed on the basis of the materials on record this is

evident from the order sheet dt- 27.06.2022.

11. Considering all the facts and materials available on the record as discussed above, and the submissions

as advanced on behalf of the management side as well as by the representative of the workman, this tribunal

finds that President, Bank Employees Federation, Bihar had raised the grievance of workman Surendra

Kumar against the management SBBJ ( now SBI after merger ) for not regularising his services as peon /

safai Karamchari at Patna City Branch from 31.07.2002 and accordingly the appropriate government sent

the reference to adjudicate the said issue. This tribunal further finds that representative of the workman filed

statement of claim without any authority of the workman and workman also did not put any signature over

the statement of claim however, management bank SBI filed written statement denying all the claims as

alleged in the statement of claim on behalf of the workman Surendra Kumar and management also produced

two witness who served in the Patna City Branch where Surendra Kumar was said to be working for 15

years but both the management witness out rightly rejected the claim of the workman in their evidence they

admitted that when ever Surendra Kumar discharged the duties of cleaning of the premises, he was duly

paid. This tribunal further find that workman never turned up in support of his claim regarding discharging

his duties at SBBJ Patna City Branch for the 15 years for which his grievances was raised by President of

Bank Employees Federation, Bihar. Since workman himself did not come forward to suffice his claim as per

statement of claim that is clear cut indication of this facts that workman was never interested in his own case

that is also admitted by the representative of the workman at last disclosing workman has no interest. This

tribunal further finds and hold that this is settled principle of law that the person who raised his grievance

before the ALC (C) Patna he has too establish his grievance before this tribunal by way of giving cogent oral

and documentary evidence to his claim but here in the instant case Surendra Kumar was never turned up and

did not give any evidence for his claim so this is considered opinion of this tribunal that workman Surendra

Kumar is not entitled for any relief. This award is effected after date of publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2027.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेससि बलरामपुर प्रोफेिनल सर्विस प्रा. जलजमटेड लखनऊ: रजिस्ट्टर, सिस्त्र बल प्राजिकरण, क्षेत्रीय पीठ, 03 आई.के. मागि लखनऊ ds

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

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (a41/2019) izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[la ,y- 14011/12/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2027.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.41/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

M/s Balrampur Profeesional Service Pvt. Ltd Lucknow : Register , Armed forces Aurthoriy , Regional

Bench, 03 I.K. Marg Lucknow and their workmen.

[No .L-14011/12/2018-IR(B-I) ]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4759

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 41/2019

Ref. No. L-14011/12/2018-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2019

BETWEEN

हिन्द मजदूर सभा उत्तर प्रदेश 25/26 यूहियि भवि, आययिगर, लखिऊ

द्वारा श्री उमाशंकर हमश्र, मिामंत्री

AND

M/s Balrampur Professional Services Pvt. Ltd M/s Balrampur Professional

Services Pvt. Ltd

5th floor, Rohit Bhawan, Spru Marg, Lucknow-226002.

Registrar, Armed Forces Authority, Regional Bench, 03 I.K.Marg,

Lucknow-226002

AWARD

By order No. L-14011/12/2018-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2019 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication

with following schedule:

“Whether the action of the management of Ws. Balrampur Professional Services Pvt. Ltd to

retrench the services of 2 security guards Manoj Kumar Dubey and Brijesh Kumar Tiwari

without complying the provision of Sec 25(f), 2S correct? If not, what others relief they are

entitled to?"

On 19.01.2006 the claimant has filed his claim petition, praying the following relief:

“क. प्रजतवािीगण द्वारा वाि से संबंजित श्रजमकों को जवना दकसी पूवि सूचना, जबना नोरटस, जबना दकसी

प्रकार की छटनी क्षजतपूर्ति, जबना दकसी कारण, जबना आरोप पत्र और सफाई का अवसर प्रिान दकये,

दिनांक 16-9-2017 से कायि से प्रथक / वंजचत दकये िाने को अनुजचत और अवैिाजनक घोजषत करते हुए

सवेतन अटूट सेवा में बिाल दकये िाने का आिेि पाररत करने की कृपा करें।

ख. बैठकी की अवजि का पूरा पूरा वेतन और अन्य जितलाभ, िो उन्िें जनरन्तर सेवा में बने रिने की जस्ट्थजत

में प्राप्त िोते, दिलाये िाने का आिेि पाररत करने की कृपा करें।

ग.

यि दक वाि के संचालन का उजचत ििाि खचाि भी दिलाया िाए।“

On 07.02.2022 on behalf of respondent No. 2 written statement has been filed inter alia stating therein that

the services of the claimants have been availed through respondent no. 1/Balrampur Professional Services

(Pvt.) Ltd, Lucknow for a fixed period of time as contractual employees, as such, they are not entitled for

any benefit from respondent no. 2.

4760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On 09.11.2022 on behalf of respondent no. 1, written statement has been filed; wherein it has been stated

that services of the claimants were provided to respondent no. 1 through respondent no. 1 on the basis of

contract deed entered between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 for period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018

only, which came to an end with the expiry of term; and they have been accordingly, as per terms of

agreement, as such, their claim for reinstatement is contrary to law, liable to be rejected.

The claimant union filed rejoinder to the written statements filed by respondent no. 1 & 2, denying the

submissions made by respondent no. 1 & 2 and reiterating its submissions made in the statement of claim.

Needless to mention that after filing of rejoinder statement several opportunities were granted to the

workman to file its evidence.

Thereafter, by an order dated 08.02.2024, passed by this Tribunal, notice was issued to the workman; and

the matter is listed for ex-parte hearing.

On the date fixed, workman did not turn up in spite of notice; accordingly, case was reserved for orders

after hearing respondents.

From perusal of the order sheet the position is emerged out that since 12.09.2023 the matter is listed for

hearing and none is appeared on behalf of claimant.

Moreover, on 15.07.2024, when the matter is taken up in revised list neither the workman nor his legal

representative has put his appearance.

Accordingly, I have heard the learned counsel for opposite party, perused the record.

Accordingly, taking into consideration, above said facts as well as the fact that no oral/documentary

evidence filed on behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, adjudication case is liable to be

dismissed.

Because, Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29)

FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him

to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction

of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the

termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial

Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce

evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or

produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, iabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

has held as under:

The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia

Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v.

State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the

reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is

not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to

establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would

be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 has held as under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the

shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to

lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show

that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no

evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4761

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

LUCKNOW.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

01^st August, 2024.

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2028.—औद्योजगक 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 औद्योजगक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a85/2018) izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[la ,y - 12011/18/2018- vkbZ vkj (ch-I) ]

सलोनी,उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2028.—.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.85/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

State Bank of India their workmen.

[No .L-12011/18/2018-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

General Secretary

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan

F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engineering College

Ujjain (MP) - 456001

Workman

Versus

The Chief General Manager

State Bank of India,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (M.P.) - 462004

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 18^th day of September-2024.)

As per letter dated 19/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number

L-12011/18/2018/IR(B-I) dt. 19/11/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-

4762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the following allegations made by the union Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmachari

Sangathan against management of State Bank of India Bhopal in the matter of Shri Bhupesh

Raikwar are amounts to unfair labour practice under I.D. Act ?

A. Not giving appointment letter and not giving termination letter.

B. Payment was not made as per pay scale/ skilled wage.

C. Minimum wages not pay.

D. Muster Roll has not been maintained as per Section 25-D of I.D. Act.

E. Applicants have worked 240 days in a year.

F. After working for six days, the wages for weekly of and National Holidays 26

January, 15 August were deducted.

If yes, what relief the workman is entitled ?”

After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties

and were duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The case of the workman, in short is that the workman was appointed as Peon in Mandi Branch at

Mandsour 08.02.2001. He worked continuously till 20.10.2012. Thereafter he was terminated without

notice or wages in lieu of one month notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in

violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act, 1947). He

had worked more than 240 days as required under Section 25-B of the Act, 1947. He worked for 240 days

and more in every year continuously and has thus acquired the status of permanent employee. He was not

paid wages in the light of Bipartite Settlement which he was entitled to. He was not paid bonus also as per

law. The management adopted unfair labour practice by continuing him as Badli worker for years and not

regularizing him. He requested that holding his termination against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated

with all back wages and benefits.

The case of the management, inter alia, is that the alleged workman was neither employed as

permanent employee nor attained permanent status. He worked as a casual worker for few hours in a day as

and when required in branch of the Bank and was paid for it. The provisions of the Section 25-F of the Act

1947 is not applicable and therefore, the question of giving notice or payment of retrenchment

compensation does not arise. It has been further pleaded that the workman was a daily wager, engaged not

on regular basis but subject to availability of work and also that he was not appointed against any

sanctioned vacancy following recruitment process. It was also pleaded that since the engagement of the

workman was on day to day basis, no formal appointment letter was required to be issued to him, also that

no muster roll was required to be prepared in his case and he is not entitled to protection of Desai Award

and Bipartite Settlement because he is not covered in these. Accordingly, management has prayed that the

reference be answered against the workman.

No evidence in form of affidavit has been filed by any of the parties, the workman has filed

photocopy of letter of Branch Manager dated 15.11.2014 with photocopy cheque, admitted by management

marked Ex. W/1 & W/2.

None appeared at argument stage. No written argument was filed. 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. According to the workman union, the basis

of adopting unfair labour practices violation of Clause-9 of 5^th Schedule to the Act read with Section 2(r)

according to which to employ workman as Badlis, Casuals or Temporary and to continued them as such for

years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workman is unfair labour

practice. In absence of any evidence to corroborate this fact as well the fact that the workman was engaged

on daily basis but did not complete 240 days in any year does not substantiate this allegation of unfair

labour practice. Furthermore, Desai Award itself provides that daily wagers are not covered by it. Same is

the case with Bipartite Settlement.

Hence, holding the allegations in statement of claim not proved, the reference deserves to be

answered against the workman.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4763

Holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference is answered against the

workman. No order as to cost.

DATE: 18/09/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2029.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a30/2015) izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[la ,y - 12012/20/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.30/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

State Bank of India their workmen.

[No. L-12012/20/2015-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2015

Present: P. K. Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Shri Santosh Kumar

S/o. Shri Bhagwan Das

H.No. 522, Near Narmada Light House

Lakadgunj, Distt. Jabalpur (MP)

Workman

Versus

1. The General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (MP)

2. The Branch Manager

State Bank of India

Malviya Chowk Branch

Jabalpur (MP)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 09^th day of September-2024.)

As per letter dated 09/03/2015 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-12012/20/2015 - IR(B-I) dt. 09/03/2015. The dispute under reference related to :-

4764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether the action of management of Branch Manager State Bank of India, Malviya Chowk

Branch, Jabalpur/ Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal (MP)

in discontinuing the services of Shri Santosh Kumar S/o. Bhagwan Das Ex-Safaiwala w.e.f.

31.08.2010 and not absorbing him into State Bank of India from State Bank of Indore pursuant to

the merging of State Bank of Indore into State Bank of India is just valid and reasonable ? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?”

After registering the case on 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 01.01.1990 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 Sweeper 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, which are Ex. W/1 letter dated 08.09.199 informing the

workman to appear in interview, Ex. W/2 letter of Chief Manager of State Bank of Indore sent to the

Regional Manager regarding payment of bonus to the workman in 1998-99. Ex. W/3, W/4, W/5, W/6, W/7

are also bonus statements. These documents are admitted by management.

Management side has filed affidavit of its witness Sanjay Dave as his examination in chief, he has

been cross examined by workman.

I have heard argument of Advocate Shri K.B. Singh for workman and Pranay Choubey for

management. I have gone through the record.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4765

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination :-

Whether, the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in

an year ?

Whether, the disengagement of the workman is legal ?

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—

(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

4766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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, 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 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.

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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4767

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 1990 till 2010, thus has

completed about 20 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, Malviya Chowk

Branch, Jabalpur/ Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal (MP) in

discontinuing the services of Shri Santosh Kumar S/o. Bhagwan Das Ex-Safaiwala w.e.f. 31.08.2010 and

not absorbing him into State Bank of India from State Bank of Indore pursuant to the merging of State

Bank of Indore into State Bank of India 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: 09/09/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2030.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

e/; jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a8/2012) izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[la ,y - 41012/27/2006- vkbZ vkj (ch-I) ]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.8/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Central Railway their workmen.

[No. L-41012/27/2006-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/8/2012

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Pramod Lohanu

C/o. Shri Rajaram Nikum

Driver, Shaniwara Gate, Near State Bank

Burhanpur (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager

Central Railway, Bhusawal Division

Bhusawal (M.P.)

Management

(J U D G E M E N T)

(Passed on this 30^th day of September-2024)

As per letter dated 28/12/2011 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-41012/27/2006/IR(B-I) dt. 28/12/2011. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of management of Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway,

Bhusawal in not considering the case of Shri Pramod Lohanu for Group-D post as per Railway

Board/Railway Ministry’s letter no.- HPB/22513/RLC dt. 18.05.1999 is legal and justified ? To what

relief the workman is entitled ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and were

served. Parties appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.

According to the workman, he was first appointed on 18.02.1978 as Gangman under P.W.I.

Burhanpur and was issued service card. He worked till 23.06.1979 the management did not take him back

on the excuse of non availability of his name in the live register of the Casual Labours as informed by them

to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Bhopal, when the workman raised a dispute with

respect to the refusal of management to take him back on job. According to the workman, the appropriate

Government refused to make reference on the ground of delay unexplained because the dispute was first

raised in 2006. The workman preferred writ before Hon’ble High Court and it was under direction of

Hon’ble High Court in the said writ, the reference was made by the Central Government to this Tribunal.

The workman has alleged that this action of management is arbitrary and is unjust. He has requested that he

be held entitled to be taken on job by the management with all back wages and in service benefits.

Rebutting the allegations of the workman, management has taken a case in their written statement

of defense that the workman has first raised a dispute in 2006 i.e., after about 26 years, hence the dispute is

not entertenable due to unexplained extra ordinary delay and secondly, he was never appointed by any

P.W.I. Bhusawal and the service card produced by him is fake. Management has thus requested that the

reference be answered against the workman.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross

examined by management. He has filed and proved his service card. He has further filed the affidavit of

another witness who is said to be his co-worker. This witness has also been cross examined by

management.

Management has filed affidavit of its witness Nagesh Gupta. He has been cross examined by

workman side.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4769

I have heard argument of learned Counsel for the workman Shri Praveen Yadav and Shri Rakesh

Soni for management.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

The pleadings of the parties have already been detailed earlier in this Judgment. The initial burden

to prove its case is on workman. He has corroborated his allegations in statement of claim in his affidavit

filed as his examination in chief, he has proved his service book, there is no stamp on his photograph in his

service book nor is there signature of any official, the seal is also not clear signature of the person is also

not clear, hence his statement is not much reliable. His witness who has stated that the workman had

worked within during the period, states that he was regularized but the workman was not regularized and

that he had no proof regarding the fact that name of the workman was deleted from live register.

On the other hand, management witness has stated that the name of the workman was never in the

live register, also that the service card produced is not genuine.

On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the case of the workman is not found reliable.

Even if it is assume that the workman did work within the period 18.02.1978 to 23.06.1979, he

raised the dispute for the first time in 2006. He could not explain the reason behind the delay. Though there

is no limitation in the Act for raising disputes by a workman, the settled proposition of law is that if the

claim is barred by unexplained latches and delay, it may be refused. There is no evidence on record

produced from the side of workman to the effect that he kept the dispute alive within the period 1979 to

2006. Hence, on this ground also, the claim of the workman fails. I am supported by following observation

of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity v. Pahal Singh, (2007) 12 SCC

193 :-

This extract is taken from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity v. Pahal Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 193 :

(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 482 : 2007 SCC OnLine SC 495 at page 196

“11.

The Labour Court was also under an obligation to consider as to whether any relief, if at

all could be granted in favour of the workman in view of the fact that the industrial dispute had been

raised after 18 years. It was obligatory on the part of the Labour Court to consider that the respondent

was in employment for very short period. It had also not arrived at a finding that the respondent was in

continuous service within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or for that

matter in terminating the services of the respondent, the appellant did not comply with the

requirements of law particularly Section 6-N thereof. In the absence of such a finding, the High Court

in our opinion should have interfered with the award.

12. It is now well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”.”

On the basis of above discussion, holding the claim of the workman is not proved and barred by

latches as well delay of 26 years in raising the dispute, the reference deserves to be answered against the

workman and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost.

DATE:- 30/09/2024

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अक् तूबर, 2024

का.आ. 2031.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ओररएंट बैंक ऑफ कॉमसि ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a31/2016) izdkf” kr djrh gSA

[la. ,y - 12011/80/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-I) ]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

4770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th October, 2024

S.O. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.31/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Orient Bank of Commerce their workmen.

[No. L-12011/80/2015-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/31/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Vinay Vinayak Kori

S/o. Anant Kumar Kori

R/o. H.No. 351, Behind Saraswati Shishu Mandir

Trimurti Nagar, Damoh Naka, Jabalpur (MP)

Workman

Versus

1. The Regional Manager,

Oriental Bank of Commerce

(Now Punjab National Bank)

Indira Press Complex, Pragati Bhawan

Marahana Pratap Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal (MP)

2. The Branch Manager

Oriental Bank of Commerce

(Now Punjab National Bank)

Madan Mahal, Gurunank School Campus

Dashmesh Dwar, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur (MP)

Management

A W A R D

(Passed on this 19^th day of September-2024.)

As per letter dated 26/02/2016 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-12011/80/2015 - IR(B-II) dt. 26/02/2016. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhopal/Branch Manager

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jabalpur in alleged termination of service of Shri Vinay Vinayak

Kori, Peon is legal and justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?”

After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, Notices were sent to the parties

and were duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The case of the workman, in short is that he was appointed as Peon in the Bank on 01.01.2005 on

daily rated basis and continuously worked till 21.02.2015, when his services were terminated without any

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4771

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. 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.

During the pendency of the reference the Oriental Bank of Commerce merged in Punjab National

Bank and the transferee has been brought on record.

In evidence, the workman has filed his affidavit, he has been cross examined by management. He

has also filed and proved photocopy documents payment vouchers Ex. W/1 to W/8, Ex. W/9 photocopy

letter of Bank with photocopy cheque, photocopy bills of BSNL Ex. W/10 to W/18, cheque book issuing

of lease deed between bank and lessor in which the workman is a witness, some other photocopy credit

cash vouchers which are Ex. W/27 to W/39. Under orders of this Tribunal, the management has filed

authenticated copy of attendance register of its employees from 2005 to 2012, salary register from 2005 to

2012 and eight credit cash vouchers.

Management side has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief, he has been cross

examined by workman. Management has further filed account opening form of workman with his

photocopy election card, electricity bill and family register, bank has further filed and proved statement of

account of the workman.

I have heard argument of Advocate Shri K.B. Singh for workman and Praveen Chaturvedi for

management. Both the sides have filed written arguments which are part of record. I have gone through the

record as well.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issues arise for determination :-

Whether, the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement for 240 days in

an year ?

Whether, the disengagement of the workman is legal ?

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

4772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :NOVEMBER 2, 2024/KARTIKA 11, 1946

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. In his cross examination, he 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.

The attendance register, salary register and payment vouchers do not contain the name of the

workman. It is to be kept in mind that both the registers contain names of regular employees of the

management and not the daily wagers. He is filed and proved documents as mentioned above which

corroborate his allegations that he worked with the bank and completed 240 days continuously in a year.

On the contrary the management witness, who is an Officer of Punjab National Bank states that she

was never posted in the Oriental Bank of Commerce. She admits that only the work of cleaning was taken

from the workman and not receiving cheque books etc. Regarding the telephone bills and signature of the

workman on these bills and demand drafts, this witness states that may be the workman was sent to deposit

the demand drafts and the receive the bills.

On comparatively evaluating the evidence as discussed above, the evidence of the workman side

appears more reliable. 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : नवम् बर 2, 2024/कार्तिक 11, 1946

4773